On an allied topic, I notice that a recent I-D - draft-ietf-sidr-arch-06.txt -
published March 9, 2009, had a running heading which included 'November 2008'.
Paranoid as I am, I immediately link this date to RFC5378 and the time when the
IETF Trust introduced the new rules for IPR.
Is there a connection orr is there some more innocent explanation as to why the
running heading is not March 2009?
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de>
To: "Scott Lawrence" <scott(_dot_)lawrence(_at_)nortel(_dot_)com>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Abstract on Page 1?
Scott Lawrence wrote:
...
This is a trivial change for the generation tools to make - at worst it
will make one generation of diffs slightly more difficult (and I'd be
happy to trade one generation of poor diffs for this, so for me just
don't worry about fixing the diff tools).
...
At this point, no change to the boilerplate is trivial anymore.
For xml2rfc, we need to
- define how to select the new behavior (date? ipr value? rfc number?);
if the behavior is not explicitly selected in the source, we need
heuristics when to use the old one and when to use the new one (keep in
mind that the tools need to be able to generate historic documents as well)
- add new test cases
- add documentation
So, I'm not against another re-organization, but, in this time, PLEASE:
- plan it well (think of all consequences for both I-Ds and RFCs)
- make the requirements precise and actually implementable (remember:
"must be on page 1" :-)
- give the tool developers sufficient time; optimally let *then* decide
when the cutover date should be
BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf