[Tools-discuss] I-Ds, submission, and preferred formats
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 25 May 2022 00:33 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 12E27C3A3D55 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2022 17:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9I2jBgAGnVEA for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2022 17:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9B4CC3A3D57 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2022 17:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1nteeL-0006pc-8E for tools-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 24 May 2022 20:13:17 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 20:13:11 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: tools-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <965BB042359713525F06D6D3@PSB>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/b6f0EI7YtXg9FumTpSKQb2mzEnI>
Subject: [Tools-discuss] I-Ds, submission, and preferred formats
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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, 25 May 2022 00:33:35 -0000
Hi. I hope this is the right place to make these comments. If it is not (and maybe it it is), see (1) below. I had occasion to look at the relatively new authors' [1] and submission [2] pages today. Nice looking, good explanations, and good work. I do have some suggestions -- three minor (I hope small patches) and one more substantive. (1) Minor: Traditionally, a contact address for suggestions and bug reports has been included on every datatracker and other tools page. It is not on either of these and there is no obvious way to get that information. Unless there is a reason for leaving it out that is not obvious to me, I suggest figuring out a way to restore it. (2) Also minor: I would have expected to find a subsection on the authors' page [1] titled something like "Submitting Your Internet Draft" even if all the test says is "When you are ready to have your draft posted, <Submitting your Internet-Draft> [2]". (3) Another issue/nit: These documents have apparently renamed "xml2rfc" to "RFCXML" even though the relevant RFCs (and even the I-D with the proposed new vocabulary [3]) still use the original terminology. The only use of "RFCXML" I can find in the datatracker is draft-rfcxml-general-the-new-webiquette [4]. It does not use the term in its actual title or in the body of the document. It also violates the naming rules for I-Ds. It is also not clear from the many contexts in which the new term is used whether it is intended to be a synonym for the "xml2rfc" vocabulary/format, in which case it should appear fairly consistently with a version number unless that is irrelevant or if it refers to version 3, at least unless a version number is given, which appears be the case in some contexts. I can think of good reasons for the new terminology, especially if you are trying to distinguish between the conversion procedure and the format. If it is going to be used, please define it precisely and then use it consistently. However, changes from long-standing and well-established terms to new ones inevitably creates confusion and, in today's world where someone might use xml2rfc as a search term and, sooner or later, won't find relevant pages with it, I think some sort of discussion with the community about the change and tradeoffs would be in order. Or, if you and others disagree, at least say a bit more than 'RFCXML was previously known as the "xml2rfc vocabulary".' in the body of the "RFCXML overview and background"' page [5]. (4) There is an increasing push to submit "RFCXML I-Ds" or "RFCXML" (even that terminology is not completely consistent). The "Submitting..." page [2] uses some fairly strong language like "If an RFCXML submission is not possible..." and "submit RFCXML if at all possible,...". There is a problem with that recommendation and at least some document authors who are developing directly in that format (I don't have any idea how many of us are left). When a document, especially a WG one, goes through many iterations, author comments are an invaluable and, at least for me, nearly essential tool for tracking changes, including making notes on when they were introduced and why, and even potential changes. Those comments are written for authors as notes to themselves and maybe to other authors. They are not suitable for public availability, especially if they include evaluations of particular ideas or critical comments about the relationships among various suggestions. And some of the comments are just confusing. To take a handy example, the working source version of draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis contains enough information to allow me to identify the source and reasons for most potentially controversial text going back to before RFC 2821 was finalized. As the RPC might remember, I started removing all of those comments either before the document went over the wall to them or late in the AUTH48 process, but that means I have to maintain a private working copy and retrofit AUTH48 changes into it to preserve information between RFC-published versions. In theory, I could do the same thing before submitting each version -- using an emacs/epsilon macro or private extension to remove all of the comments -- is not that big a deal, but it is extra work. But, unless you want to have a serious conversation about additional tools, I'm going to interpret posting the XML form as "not possible" and you keep getting plain text. Maybe that is ok, but I want to be sure that the "post XML" near-requirement can be bar to effective and efficient document development and evolution. thanks, john [1] https://authors.ietf.org/ [2] https://authors.ietf.org/en/submitting-your-internet-draft [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc7991bis/ [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfcxml-general-the-new-webiquette/ [5] https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-overview
- [Tools-discuss] I-Ds, submission, and preferred f… John C Klensin
- Re: [Tools-discuss] I-Ds, submission, and preferr… Jay Daley
- Re: [Tools-discuss] I-Ds, submission, and preferr… John C Klensin
- Re: [Tools-discuss] I-Ds, submission, and preferr… John C Klensin