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

[Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 21, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 21.08.2019 16:36, Heather Flanagan wrote:
>> Hi Julian, all,
>> 
>> Comments below.
>> ...
>> 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.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> 2.2. - fine with requiring date info, but the dates must be displayed according to the current pattern
> 
> Please document the current pattern then (incl for April 1st RFCs).

Yes.

> 
>> 3.1.13 - need to review what the design team said about this
> 
> Please.
> 
>> 3.1.21.5 - definitely need to rewrite this section; docName should show up in the metadata
> 
> FWIW, I agree with Henrik's summary for this point.

Good to know.

> 
> 
> Also...
> 
> Hm, what about the 44 open issues at
> <https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues <https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues>>?

I’ll review those as part of the draft update, but I don’t think any of them are blockers.

> 
> Also, will there be any discussion about the changes proposed and
> implemented by Henrik? If I, as an implementer, see problems with the
> changes, where can I provide feedback and actually get a discussion?

For the proposed changes to the vocabulary, this is an area where I need to look at the discussion to date and just make a decision. I don’t see that rehashing the discussions will provide new information. I expect every decision regarding vocabulary changes will have people for and against each one. 

The proper place for discussion for v3 tooling bugs and feature requests remains xml2rfc-dev. 


> 
> And is there an actual plan for work on 7991bis???

I’m working on the bis doc now.

-Heather