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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 9, 2019, at 19:29, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> 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:”?

Grüße, Carsten