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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 29 June 2021 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 01BC23A33E5 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YCJCafrMdHjA for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 197F23A33E3 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc89.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (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 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <b2b1a003-317b-c099-8dbc-da37738203a9@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:09:25 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 646664965.66747-517e62213286150ef804343d90b47de9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EB4134ED-09F7-4F50-B79F-3896BB61D2D7@tzi.org>
References: <20210627013258.1D30F188447C@ary.qy> <691b91b6-86d7-2a3d-b9dc-8c19cc507db4@gmail.com> <584d34d6-5630-bbb7-35cc-9459dabc80f0@taugh.com> <82887902-90d0-3616-656b-fc39e4febd47@gmail.com> <70fee53d-28b9-874a-6988-6c1234ca149@taugh.com> <20210628193815.GL5057@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <ffd86c27-82a0-8c92-d270-ab1c770acb99@gmail.com> <20210628234707.GM5057@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <b2b1a003-317b-c099-8dbc-da37738203a9@gmx.de>
To: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/wfl1rmJPmHDHTHJ2p87znjs0img>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] .txt? [I-D Action: draft-xxx.txt]
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: 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.