Re: [Tools-discuss] handling of Working group label in ietf.org hosted output

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 09 December 2019 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91161200FB for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 15:18:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qAniFjO7PJDb for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 15:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA2D21200F6 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 15:18:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1575933497; bh=qes60LJb/rd/NCoiWNi/vJqxNFnP6ZU6MPPZ/bodU4k=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=R7bpJC590BHoXfPL2DnXdoGKjBq72eh9eGPnhA56wOSekW8QYYJW18+cjRifada9x QggeUMnsR29I7TD/1sfEhsXze0r6R0zYHX3tPa9tqV8zKpSPCrY7jx58+iBy6SPIBG ZSvfCbW1QvChDf/pew2+EjhUYF+nV86ThahZsHL0=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.178.124] ([84.171.157.188]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MYeQr-1iI84Z3CQF-00VeTl; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:18:16 +0100
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, tools-discuss@ietf.org
References: <31038.1575916189@localhost> <2C2F75BC-5467-4D69-A61C-02B90DF8218A@tzi.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <130a2823-a081-b17b-7d3e-7d9e354c7f9b@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:18:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2C2F75BC-5467-4D69-A61C-02B90DF8218A@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:bP4EcODRfKWXjyt1DsY5SVtAY7/WcwlSV0oTCdRlJ6tqfWJ565S L4BsAhAhihfz2Ix8CUZnQP6HwzwMVs2P3JHq4rAZmquqKtgGjF++af3rNhF6zhFwSUuYcLl zRH/NjFR6gWlyZmjprBeGLmcDwovfF5JVnQB+fGcwUX35+I/9tB9MvAUW/FtuIhcdddCVkN fJUnXqy2sN3UUBsW31lpA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ZczRM8fPkGc=:YuLuuX/3UpWg0H5f67kL+Z QmzEP+0zG+E8FaoP8QfaEVEcQzKhTmlXW7wYVwrwTAE3CGfFd2PRVXb2+SkoVyhxX2dJRU7Ik WVdDErjUUmG6BQVQcMhArc8bR1KBtK0bBDnFxqqY0DgcQ4fmJyhKPzA8dOk4U6U69t6Ec0TWb QO1MxsBzhCpBPiOKew5KSOvSXiVTWKP8T5B/LAEul+wnl5EqEecNF67jR7mOrfzays2947dYj TXXvMa0afMJjX1ddOycNdyS8a1XCNI+o+s8cG1XKfrrNcxDQaGsF+QoIJg48YU8olknLQloSP n0xB2Im9TOTAGiqE97vw6zA6Y+7BXm59h9UpHXvzdsuuskTX68kdOJQgcBZORA0U1dQdU6vBN c+aVxhjgCT9hn58Zyd3D5JVvBUDC2QTcUtmozPGnmAYyKGq1wJ0x8mPVcXSJdqV5WU1+Fzd99 l3BSTITAST6w0MuEZxPOBLsQXz9gV6K2mxf3Gcd0U9S7KBZhgsFk3SliW0EukB0mGgNLJ5TIn D9Vm0rpSfnaa0NfQKJzzDZPV+GYWDoo81YKprWVLwsNFUqcGFS7xYubbdsOQpmpC7rqHXibCT /DP0AilxTWVM3qvtqtr/khSaGI+aFjCdDTUFv72SAqyNqS7+4pwJZt0fFRoV1cmXY8d99wycF 9BmoAy0lehRQH3+IV6qxpFxq+oCa6FQF5oJZ5RQ08FOKmUdpjPedZfBMf3Kq5ZzxR0CrUZBlv 2LkoyhZ3r9yt4w2wh/9JTgH7ss717ijh7kTj05iimNaLOAd9ttwOEbK/Ek/cNI6fKW9V8ttmU rWbewWLa3D17BeP/igYFRBV1YGX7g2ABjFajthrOv2R5xwtKLKq8/bY6iouxHib8ghVAVEXqF YDqMTHJ2HlaDGmVTT+pVctJSgXVciIZn43tn2KnMEGu1tkde9RgHATuL0oIePyB96vp2FBz8p akhpPz9ygNkMvv/UqGSzUXrRYAr0eNbXikXksQyTNIv4fKU8r+3er1KTHr3041pdmiCNJyEFq 3zuddzAHTytoGuHgM3oNtci7XzzuWHVMZ5/B1TSAiVJDXe7raa9alym7ruOwq8vx9pMIZUrCp +oZjsySm1/3DkP4CqITp8+JttP4k7qd86i/2z6TiAYt2w598Xvj7nMoltPE5J/xePxiDBlHVL CFeSE/jd9QHdGbfXnCRnNXcWvGWV8zPcRhRGySheA2VHULpD2wCy+7OEvf1Qar+OvCYPSFVhJ 3c792gAH98l2h2kggOpHwoIoGVrVajLyKP0KNhgpg0XQMGAexTfiEIxCKWo0=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/0NWqaCTVEHcYAw2D72DBaQnVamY>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] handling of Working group label in ietf.org hosted output
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 23:18:34 -0000

On 09.12.2019 20:20, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2019, at 19:29, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>
>> 1) what should I put?  I think that "independant submission" would make
>> sense.
>
> RFC 7991 says:
>
>     This element is used to specify the Working Group (IETF) or Research
>     Group (IRTF) from which the document originates, if any.  The
>     recommended format is the official name of the Working Group (with
>     some capitalization).
>
> Clearly, your submission to ANIMA did not originate from the WG, so just writing “anima” is not right, as you say.  People still like to indicate the target for an individual submission, so “Submission to the anima working group” would work for me.  (I too often see documents where I have no idea where they are discussed.  Adding an editor’s note for that is a good way to provide that information, but a workgroup element sounds like a minimal way to cover this.)
>
> The confusion is similar to the “intended status” confusion: When I’m writing a submission for the standards track, it is not yet on the standards track, but I’ll still indicate that I want it to be.  So I’m likely write
>
> wg: LWIG Working Group
>
> in my submission to the LWIG WG about 7228bis, even before it is adopted.
>
> BTW,
>
>     Formatting software can append the words "Working Group" or "Research
>     Group", depending on the "submissionType" property of the <rfc>
>     element (Section 2.45.12).
>
> I don’t think that this happens, so you seem to get free reign to influence what goes into the first line of the I-D.  Maybe xml2rfc should instead put in “Intended working group:” as it does for “Intended status:”?
> ...

rfc2629.xslt appends "Working Group" when the specified string does not
already contain it.

Best regards, Julian