Re: [xml2rfc-dev] Transition to V3, was: Please help review v3 files

[Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Julian, all,

Comments below.

> On Aug 20, 2019, at 12:55 AM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Heather,
> 
> any news on this?
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> 
> On 25.07.2019 15:07, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 18.07.2019 09:56, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Hi Heather & RFC-interested colleagues,
>>> 
>>> it's nice to hear that the production center is making progress (see
>>> mail below which reminded me of this topic).
>>> 
>>> However, we still don't have a definition of what "v3" is, and I don't
>>> think you can start *publishing* in V3 until that is done, or at least
>>> understood when it is done.
>>> 
>>> We currently have:
>>> 
>>> 1) RFC 7991 and friends
>>> 
>>> 2) abandoned -bis drafts for some of these, for instance:
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc7991bis/>
>>> 
>>> 3) an issue tracker that is getting little feedback:
>>> <https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues>
>>> 
>>> 4) an early implementation, with implementation notes:
>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-09>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 5) a significant number of open issues that were reported to the
>>> mailing lists xml2rfc and/or xml2rfc-dev, which I believe have not
>>> been addressed
>>> 
>>> My personal impression is that we'll end up in a situation where we -
>>> once again - have no proper specification, but just one concrete
>>> implementation; similar to what we had with v2.
>>> 
>>> It would be awesome to get an update about the plans to finalize the
>>> v3 specification (timeline, process, etc). I believe the upcoming
>>> plenary would be a good place to talk about this.
>>> 
>>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Heather!
>> 
>> I listened through the plenary recording and did not see any mention of
>> this topic.
>> 
>> I understand it's a busy time, and furthermore a very busy week, but it
>> would be great if you could at least give a timeline about when you
>> might be able to give a reply.
>> 
>> Best regards, Julian
> 

I met with Henrik and Alice in Montreal to go through each item in draft-levkowetz-v3-implementation-notes and am holding the pen to update 7991bis accordingly; I’m working on that this week. For the most part, I agreed with Henrik’s suggestions regarding the vocabulary in his implementation notes. Specific points where I did not I’ve noted below.[1] I do not intend to hold up implementation for the final publication of 7991bis. 

The only showstopper bugs I’m aware of (from the RFC Editor perspective) at this point involve <xref> section links and an issue with comments cutting off non-commented text. Those are either fixed in 2.24.0 and being tested or are expected to be fixed this week in 2.24.1 (and then will be tested).

Henrik has been prioritizing issues and bug fixes as sent via email by the RPC. These have not gone into trac; it probably makes sense for the RPC to start using trac when the tools are officially in production.

The current rollout date is September 16. I’ve pushed it out two weeks to make sure Henrik and the RPC have time to fix/test the remaining big items. I’m sending out a message to rfc-interest (and possibly [e-mail]) about this in the next day or so. 


[1] Push back on the vocabulary suggestions in draft-levkowetz-v3-implementation-notes:
2.1. - pagination for I-D is fine, but consensus was no pagination for RFCs. Nothing has changed since that decision was made.
2.2. - fine with requiring date info, but the dates must be displayed according to the current pattern
3.1.13 - need to review what the design team said about this
3.1.21.5 - definitely need to rewrite this section; docName should show up in the metadata