IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [rfc-i] RFC 8661 in AUTH48, was: [v3] Please help review v3 files

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 19 September 2019 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEE41208FE for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 LMDpWaefMjqQ for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930CC1200F8 for <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.140.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id x8J9ZMWX027600 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1568885736; x=1568972136; i=@elandsys.com; bh=/zui4M2QGwAdYGPJRx0dARM8LwSEN5QdJt8lh29PXcE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=fih0fGG+SBw71nsL+ixbbGZifv1HlfPaWn2QXkcjASB6wyj3G9TxqZzGB3yOqJLzt JxollqJTV1airjoaBch7SXy60u8fatL6e8o/Yb7cBFAyB+MiWogUvr4fvd2U1rbX5T 25qwmgC/Vxv4V/KEVK1ZaFzUPha90J4RxrIiPMuU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190919023037.0bfb9c68@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 02:35:08 -0700
To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <aa7f25f9-6568-5866-b3ae-bee1503dd59d@gmx.de>
References: <6D7CF9A5-F8FA-4D78-9001-ADC7CD0B2A36@amsl.com> <6AFC0271-060C-4A2F-84EE-CB40DD328039@amsl.com> <eaf9e970-c570-4ee8-096c-ec70e85c4af5@gmx.de> <dabe2baa-9d71-0089-a486-844a3b24a08b@gmx.de> <D7552A58-F10A-4600-962B-151DAB4DA6CB@rfc-editor.org> <aa7f25f9-6568-5866-b3ae-bee1503dd59d@gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc-dev/6nmsFLOfsdgjabzpdSl0RhVqruA>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [rfc-i] RFC 8661 in AUTH48, was: [v3] Please help review v3 files
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." <xml2rfc-dev.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc-dev>, <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev>, <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:35:46 -0000

Hello,
At 01:22 PM 18-09-2019, Julian Reschke wrote:
>On 18.09.2019 22:09, Heather Flanagan wrote:
>
>>The RFC Editor discussed this internally; we recognize it as a 
>>problem for more than just RFC-to-be 8661. That said, for now we're 
>>going to use a work around, as the implementing of a new way of 
>>handling the role of 'contributor' is outside the existing scope of work.
>
>Well, the issue has been known for several years now, so declaring it
>out-of-scope is a bit weird. Note that this is a regression from v2,
>where line breaks could be forced inside regular text, so at least no
>abuse of <artwork> was needed.

Given that this is a known problem and it is not that new, why is 
outside the existing scope of work?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email