Hi again folks,
xml2rfc does process the <workgroup>Blah</workgroup> element already.
I assume that this element will be removed/replaced during RFC-ED
processing.
Thus structured naming of drafts is not needed if the I-D author does
his/her job.
What is missing is a mapping from WG to the ML subscribe address.
I would have thought that this could be a fairly fixed table that could
be used by a reasonable hack to xml2rfc. If there is a workgroup
element,
the tied ML address could be auto-generated and placed on the next line.
Note that this does not cover those cases where an I-D is associated
with
a ML but there is no current WG at that point (e.g. BoF-related drafts).
Text showing the ML would have to be written explicitly into the I-D.
However, any putative ML mapping hack to xml2rfc would cover most I-Ds.
all the best,
Lawrence
On 16 Jan 2007, at 05:39, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
lconroy wrote:
Hi Folks,
as a slight counter to that:
I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to
include the
WG's ML inside a draft intended (eventually) to be an RFC.
The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst
an RFC is forever.
However, an unprocessed/not updated I-D disappears after 6 months,
and
that is a lot shorter than the half life of a WG, so your mileage
may vary.
Maybe ML info should be put inside a note to RFC-ED (i.e. remove
on approval)
within each draft?
That's why I like the "status of this memo" section - it is not
going to survive the I-D to RFC process anyway.
But I don't think xml2rfc makes this easy at the moment.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf