Re: [Tools-discuss] .txt? [I-D Action: draft-xxx.txt]

Carsten Bormann <> Tue, 29 June 2021 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01BC23A33E5 for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YCJCafrMdHjA for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 197F23A33E3 for <>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4GDlDk0sNDz2xHV; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:09:26 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:09:25 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 646664965.66747-517e62213286150ef804343d90b47de9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <20210627013258.1D30F188447C@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] .txt? [I-D Action: draft-xxx.txt]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:09:32 -0000

>> […] And figuring out how to put RFC references into v3 was also more convoluted han in v2.
> […]
> b) It's just a slightly different syntax (a standard one instead of a
> what actually was a hack).

This sentence(†) is a nice demonstration for the confusion in this space.

As a format for the publishing process (RPC), having a standards-based mechanism is good.  (The references don’t make it to the published RFC, as they have been expanded by then, but the process may still benefit.)

As a format for authoring, making the input vastly more complicated in the name of some lofty goal (here: standards conformance) is exactly the leading symptom of the v3 development process.  Offering a bespoke, efficient(*) way of keyboarding IETF document references is exactly the right way to handle this, at least for people still authoring in XML.

Grüße, Carsten

(†) I have removed the attribution, because this observation is not about a single person.  It is about the groupthink that derailed some of the v3 process.

(*) In case that isn’t clear: Efficiency here is all about saving time for the author while continuing to achieve a high quality result.