IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc] [Tools-discuss] [Rfc-markdown] New xml2rfc release: v3.16.0

Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> Thu, 19 January 2023 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@staff.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026A7C15154E for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:00:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ietf-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 567zwIYD-6KJ for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77E91C15154F for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id q10so3088629wrs.2 for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:00:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ietf-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:cc:date:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=0AO0iM68xAsDDlA9VB+qwka0oYJ9YqW8xVF7e0Pkl1c=; b=Nu/pNbRLsp7hYYkOMQhMFNBb6Z213VVqBgoRrTlgqqm/nJbRA2eg1B6Wkm5XX0KYRm todmN7Sjot/Wa/xgLMUmah2IbtGxRXc7UFcIlU0fnZ9gDfFGGC5swZOCB4Id2mAxWxbC mm4iYy+xEDb/DU5fCwrQz2oGmYZgXweiUbHyasPeZeNaPwow3wA1/CVxqEIZYUnFue7G eiMIYnNewKvP/C8aNzrdVchRU0p3dkXH+c20v6WdRlonjEhB1p2ua5VmuSex+SmnYPYJ NTWPRdBD8tP1qq2VmCstu8mBGVVLN1MSlzkbtns5MdJOI1NL1jbRFZTeUmhBa/eydCD0 Tzkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:cc:date:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=0AO0iM68xAsDDlA9VB+qwka0oYJ9YqW8xVF7e0Pkl1c=; b=tGsHlh52ubWPrSadlA6rYbuDRrMcwcFRvW6+ZunWLYEJp7jPRtv58/TU1kH/jsGcDJ mbG/B08z8lNbRLU5pPuG8B7ZsVIXidsZEWdjZ71CGL0e9yJAGcXIqQt5Sfh6cSQCWtxm WNRaDO3213+A5pgZlbfQmvO181nT1VjH5kHzRVdS0uZtEwDcwhmwzctNljBy9rUd1SvI LpyrZ+NVafONWwc1Wb+sJd0nqOBUXBVjwCJEJm2nax9Ys36gR2XVx2B/ANLWGlpSFsp/ Z7ISUNhgxs0SY0qxoIQAdM1HuWhhTM2aAQZ7IyCogbHSJ5WUqnt5Guuir+FAMuhjj/lj TrWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2krlf0vQJwVx6IGQc78LMgoF3mm92TRfcMlTlmBVy+kKWE6fdQvt 2YVxi3Ze1eftQ1BJFP6pfzHNpq37
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXuoLaInopieXll1fdSl7OmDb1k4LnYiLga0vkYpF/f2kGaG2UGSJfUPQUs/CIGQ7f7xDjz8Fw==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4450:0:b0:2b9:d6ba:21ee with SMTP id x16-20020a5d4450000000b002b9d6ba21eemr11017248wrr.1.1674162019335; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:00:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (host-92-27-125-209.static.as13285.net. [92.27.125.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l14-20020a5d526e000000b0028e55b44a99sm16803247wrc.17.2023.01.19.13.00.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:00:18 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_14AACAE9-0B29-4793-BFB7-D0122873C641"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <6d55cf67-1ce2-8094-dda4-ab877ac2a1d7@petit-huguenin.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:00:16 +0000
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "xml2rfc@ietf.org" <xml2rfc@ietf.org>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <1573D125-B3A9-4839-A1B2-DAD87FBB5DA6@ietf.org>
References: <CAD2=Z87EMetcpv66YY_b2+X1-yFy4cTpKMjPoJL=cH99c7P_Uw@mail.gmail.com> <9d719176-a4eb-7cce-e706-10325700531c@petit-huguenin.org> <F1A5624B-16D0-4463-AC5F-B0A03F3B94B6@ietf.org> <8f5a497e-4135-7c0c-46cb-c3fe4791e9f3@petit-huguenin.org> <3B53040D-9B5F-4410-9029-459729ADFDF8@ietf.org> <7d532a76-c750-8cb6-fc86-f6242da2bc77@petit-huguenin.org> <27182BDD-899E-4238-9DF8-7AE3E0F0C18F@akamai.com> <11a20f42-4fe6-8d8d-1d76-54049d0bdb68@petit-huguenin.org> <6179D431-EC33-49B9-A793-805E926C1050@akamai.com> <6d55cf67-1ce2-8094-dda4-ab877ac2a1d7@petit-huguenin.org>
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/8Q4LiMyBayYVzrnvVSfSAmfsUCk>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] [Tools-discuss] [Rfc-markdown] New xml2rfc release: v3.16.0
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: XML2RFC discussion list <xml2rfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc>, <mailto:xml2rfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:00:26 -0000


> On 19 Jan 2023, at 20:46, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> On 1/19/23 12:35, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> Thank you for your reply.
>> 
>>> Obviously when I say add a new element to the language, it means create a RFC7991bis that does that modification. And then modify the xml2rfc tool to match the new spec.
>> 
>> Wasn't obvious, I appreciate the clarification. But if you're modifying the XML language, why not just remove the limitations on non-ASCII that have been found to be problematic?
> 
> Because what I find to be problematic is allowing Unicode everywhere.  My proposal of following RFC 7997 to the letter instead of sneakily circumvent it has, among others, the advantage of not allowing emojis in a document generated by xml2rfc.  I cannot think of a more important goal for the future of humanity.

I can only repeat what I’ve said before in the hope that doing so leads to some recognition - all this change does is move the enforcement of RFC 7997 from the tool to the RPC editors and stream managers.  That same set of people already enforce many other rules quite successfully.  This is not opening the floodgates.

Jay

> 
>> 
>> I would also appreciate your thoughts on this point as it seems your rationale is all about the "violations" you cite.
>> 
>>> I'm not even sure "violate 7997" is even a sensible thing to say, since that is an INFORMATIONAL RFC. So, for that matter, is RFC 7322.
>>> 
>>> See, for example, https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informational-vs-experimental/ <https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informational-vs-experimental/> and RFC 2026.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
> Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
> Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
> 
> 
> 

--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
exec-director@ietf.org

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status