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

Carsten Bormann <> Sat, 20 February 2021 07:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3C93A1308 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 23:08:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id krOQ7lqIjPIp for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 23:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FAE83A1307 for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 23:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (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 \(3654.\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 08:08:53 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Julian Reschke <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] [rfc-i] whose on first
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 07:09:00 -0000

On 20. Feb 2021, at 07:01, Julian Reschke <> 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.

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=""/>
          <format type="PDF" target=""/>

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