--On Monday, 26 November, 2007 11:21 +0100 Eliot Lear
<lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
This argues that XML files be submitted as the authoritative
source at the time of WGLC, Paul, if they are going to be
submitted at all, and the I-D manager generates the text. I'm
fine with that, by the way.
Eliot,
I'd urge a little caution on this. I can't speak for others,
but I tend to extensively annotate my working source extensively
with comments about the source of a change, obsolete or
alternate proposed text, proposals under discussion and what I
think about them, etc. I generally consider that material
confidential, especially when it responds to comments received
off-list. I typically remove material of that type before
handing the XML over to the RFC Editor but taking it out of the
working drafts prior to WGLC or even prior to IETF LC (when some
of it might be needed to review discussions of an issues and how
and why it was resolved) risks the loss of important information.
Another potential problem is that document generation from XML source may
involve more than just running xml2rfc. Some documents are built up from
multiple files in complex ways that cannot easily be duplicated by the I-D
manager.
Only when the document is finished does it make sense to generate a
self-contained XML source for it.
It seems to me that, regardless of whatever else we do, the RFC
Editor should generate a document from the XML and compare it to
whatever the IESG approved before going forward. Even if we
insert other steps, that is probably a necessary precaution. I
believe it is also sufficient, which makes it especially
attractive.
+1
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf