Re: [Tools-discuss] draft submitted source versions

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Wed, 27 November 2019 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
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 14F961208EB for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 08:31:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 XBveWpN2wBeY for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 08:31:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x333.google.com (mail-wm1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) (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 051F21208E3 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 08:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x333.google.com with SMTP id n5so8274957wmc.0 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 08:30:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=HbGwaSkWDvilfll/x5fgnxS7nuC0m14dzNQ0sTs1TMA=; b=KjjFIgAQM6WWjj7MynthL1Atvn/H+V3oOTyC04eX65KXmcQOjXBgB7gbcrLVvMcw4N +dNPBOJGihhmUFqvSBBgOgBp0UAUxa98LHCzqdTnKLKjHQgwL83j3boN4YBwx6MaW+SA vph1f6PZASTTtErOH3Q7DB/8ZXJo4vRv0VTkDENQDBR2hLj3Eu9y6Rq7BjAZ+1j1y4SM o8KsT0X+7oqe+19PpzhmJm6MAXHT5O4clwegACNU8a3GbE+UvzlasMOgII8A/bgb34xN JCz6ZlnW3WwA+z1W/oq7R5GFnerMRJs1Ll1vZLa7Dh8P/O+wABuOjH7Mv9QUkACSDhgb 5NDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=HbGwaSkWDvilfll/x5fgnxS7nuC0m14dzNQ0sTs1TMA=; b=WsSrq9IG274oWeSqdUkzwLxCWA4oT1FoPslW0cPUFTFH4rroByOaTa30Q1VFvWz1Od lBcnZgz1RfHhwyY+/WRi8Fwsz8jbFPwGsirOoDxyMzF8l/k9Mw5J6l0B2hfb+08+W42+ GKyabhlLvsWyMrwnVpNo+NlC9lbGo98ovEJmPWa1O+R3E+sO34BVE180531ABtff7P7J DWXBU/mEPvNq7rDAMK+7Ci6nKxKumWP+8Tjepw7vxlQaJ+PmcBSggGdKTcQffv+JhcwG ALjZGsZ9G1GYtUs6ZMsqnYGCfdzlGbd6WecD7SeZz9ctF/a+wUFExYEHTDCz4payFYro FEjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV+WN7VpEsRKZKFSxxv8AyCKPD3ILslcA426eIKCNNeNBFGKDrl bB36OQWbzchvHaLjOnCw6nc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxUYH2F/pZeo21TEA5riQtBOjoJEHRNzTv/31zY5mN4s+FTHvc+71GD8vTZXqK4R6gpnjFi2Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:964f:: with SMTP id y76mr1433799wmd.62.1574872243450; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 08:30:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:7c6c:bf76:449e:624b? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:7c6c:bf76:449e:624b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p9sm19559537wrs.55.2019.11.27.08.30.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Nov 2019 08:30:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E7D4281D-97E6-40B1-8156-F2D1D474BA8E@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6DF0C69E-E2C2-4F18-A850-5B16AD7C156E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 08:30:33 -0800
In-Reply-To: <6c45cbfb-5f5e-06eb-d222-57106e957ae1@gmx.de>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>, tools-discuss@ietf.org
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <31178.1574667473@dooku.sandelman.ca> <2AD3F313-D831-41D0-87EC-AF722427B4AD@bangj.com> <11131.1574848336@dooku.sandelman.ca> <6c45cbfb-5f5e-06eb-d222-57106e957ae1@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/XCE-yKP6i_3i55LrIpyy8j97cFo>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] draft submitted source versions
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:31:14 -0000

Julian,

> On Nov 27, 2019, at 2:22 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> On 27.11.2019 10:52, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> 
>> Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> wrote:
>>     >> Tom Pusateri <pusateri=40bangj.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>     >>> Is there anyway to tell if the TXT version was created from the
>>     >>> submitted XML or was uploaded separately?
>>     >>
>>     >>> If an XML version is submitted, is there any reason to allow DRAFT
>>     >>> AUTHORS to submit alternate versions still?
>>     >>
>>     >> If the XML won't format because the references.* files are AWOL, then
>>     >> allowing the author to upload the TXT version lets them get around that.
>>     >>
>>     >> This happened to me last week.
>> 
>>     > Sure but then don’t accept the XML AND the TXT. If the XML is bad,
>>     > reject it and accept the TXT.
>> 
>>     > Otherwise you have two different source documents and there should be only one.
>> 
>> Yes, I see this problem, but I see a bigger problem of archival.
>> ...
> 
> Archiving XML with external dependencies is problematic anyway :-) (ok,
> archival not necessary, but assuming that the archived document can be
> used to re-create the same output files)

I have mixed feeling about this topic.

For submitting an Internet draft, I am not sure it matters very much.  We don’t currently require XML, the TXT is enough.  I personally always submit TXT and XML, but I assume the XML is not processed if I also submit a TXT file.   I would like to know if the two don’t match, but my main goal in submitting an ID is to get it published.  I suspect if it is common that the XML doesn’t produce a TXT file that matches, some folks would just stop submitting the XML, especially as it gets near an ID deadline.

RFCs are a very different matter.  There I assume we want the XML.   It would be a big problem if the XML didn’t produce the same TXT file, as it was the TXT file that people used to review the draft and approve it.

We might want to add a step (to IDnits?) where the XML and TXT are verified.   That would avoid problems later in the publicaiton process.

Bob