Re: [xml2rfc] [rfc-i] whose on first

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 20 February 2021 07:08 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.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 EC3C93A1308 for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 23:08:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 krOQ7lqIjPIp for <xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 23:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FAE83A1307 for <xml2rfc@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 23:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.152] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DjKLF722nzyXf; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 08:08:53 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <b34dd0e5-a8a4-9d17-b924-d8f4b73fc6bc@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 08:08:53 +0100
Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <629EE7CF-70B0-453F-997C-EFF74F995A71@tzi.org>
References: <m2wnv3n1sz.wl-randy@psg.com> <CA975ECC-B70A-4856-8760-443740DB5531@tzi.org> <b34dd0e5-a8a4-9d17-b924-d8f4b73fc6bc@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc/kq4Epoul9VmsTew0udu_AJJ-YF8>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] [rfc-i] whose on first
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 07:09:00 -0000

On 20. Feb 2021, at 07:01, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Note that the <format> element was deprecated in RFC 7991 for good
> reasons: it had no proper docs, and was inconsistently used. If there's
> a use case for it, it should be written down properly, and then the
> element could be resurrected.

Interesting.  
I know of only one usage, and that is quite well established:  Providing multiple link targets that differ in their format.
Well, it sometimes was used for single links with the intention to give the format of the one target provided.

I find a lot of examples of the single link use in the RFC repository, the most recent one in RFC 8979 from this month.
RFC 8795 has one with
          <format type="TXT" target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-teas-te-topo-and-tunnel-modeling-06.txt"/>
          <format type="PDF" target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-teas-te-topo-and-tunnel-modeling-06.pdf"/>

What was the usage inconsistent with that?

(I would understand an argument that we don’t know how to render it in general, or that it has an attribute named “octets” :eyeroll:, but not that it was inconsistently used.  Obviously, RFC 7749/7991 was the opportunity to write it down less poorly.)

Grüße, Carsten