Re: Getting 2822 to Draft
--On Tuesday, 06 January, 2004 09:07 -0500 Bruce Lilly
Pete Resnick wrote:
So, for the new year I started thinking about getting 2822 to
Draft. (Also, 3822 is coming up in the RFC numbers :-) ).
I've gotten started on getting a new draft together. There
are a small bunch of nits to fix; that I can handle. There's
also an implementation report to write. On that I'd like to
get some help.
The one possible big thing has to do with the ABNF in 2822.
Out of either altruism or insanity, some time ago Bruce
Lilly had written up changes to the ABNF in 2822 to do some
cool things. On the plus side, it seems to get rid of all of
the [C]FWS shift-reduce conflicts, and it is already done.
On the minus side, I don't know anyone (myself included) who
has gone over it with a fine tooth comb, it is a significant
number of ABNF changes, and it therefore might recycle us at
Proposed. I am open to suggestions on this.
a) 2821 and 2822 are closely related
b) there remain a few inconsistencies between 2821 and 2822
is there a draft of a 2821 successor that can be reviewed at
the same time
as the draft of the 2822 successor?
The editor of 2821 also made a new year's resolution, and
actually opened the document last week to incorporate more of
the changes that have been suggested. The bad news is that the
working copy is in Word XP. I'm not a Word fan -- all of my
other I-Ds are in XML or directly edited in ASCII-- but because,
after the experiences with DRUMS, I wanted to be sure that I
could identify, in the working text, the source and
justification for all of the requested changes if any
controversy arose. The difficulty is that converting a Word
document with as many comments, change markup, internal cross
references, etc., as that one now has is far beyond the scope of
RFC 3285 (the attempt was what produced the "RFC 3285 considered
harmful" thread on the IETF list a year or so ago). So, I'm
reluctant to go through the rather painful conversion until I
have a complete draft. If you would like to look directly at
the Word form, or a PDF display of it (our experience has been
that Word XP documents with extensive comments and markup don't
get along with Mac Word either), I think that could be arranged
within the next week or two.