Re: [xml2rfc-dev] consensus=true warning

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Mon, 18 November 2019 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.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 BA4FB12089D for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:19:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 j2LY4Nevyxzs for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [64.170.98.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B12BD12088A for <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-80bf.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.128.191]:59405) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1iWWdI-0003Pu-Vn; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:19:17 -0800
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
References: <174aa1cb-2be4-471d-8c90-a79a6bd647e6@www.fastmail.com> <06e72a3e-780e-510c-d88b-890f092027b0@levkowetz.com> <2f068031-91db-4019-a1c6-2930896e5770@www.fastmail.com> <e7ea14f8-4062-912a-1cab-79ba2cc87226@levkowetz.com> <c80c0729-23c0-48ac-a074-d037f04fd071@www.fastmail.com>
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Message-ID: <7ae488dc-2e5a-9b7f-c228-43d5e21c2625@levkowetz.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 03:19:14 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c80c0729-23c0-48ac-a074-d037f04fd071@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3kuSKjGNPPJjvOkrwPSqDpwL93PC0adtt"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 31.133.128.191
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, mt@lowentropy.net
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc-dev/sbBNcu3tcujrzURbtoskfaxE4Wc>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] consensus=true warning
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 02:19:19 -0000

On 2019-11-18 03:09, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019, at 10:04, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> Right.  I think the schema authors made a mistake in giving this field a
>> default value.
> 
> So you are saying that if I set a value of false explicitly, then you
> are unable to distinguish this from the default AND that this is my
> fault?

?? No, that's not at all what I'm trying to say.  I'm not trying to blame
you at all, in any way.  I'm trying to explain that the warning is there
as a result of having a default value for a field which probably should
not have one, and the preptool phase being required to set that value if
no value has been set.

> Or am I confused.
> 
> Also, where do you get the idea that status="standard" +
> consensus="false" is invalid?  That is always true for a draft.

The schema default values make no distinction between drafts and RFCs.

My preference would be to have a default value for this attribute, as it
causes multiple issues.  Since pretty much every issue I tried to bring
to this list because I saw that it needed change resulted in hours and
hours of interminable discussions, I had to choose between getting the v3
tools out, or sit and discuss forever.  The warning is my way of not
sweeping this issue under the mat.


	Henrik