--On Monday, August 08, 2011 13:34 -0700
ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 9:19 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: I-D Working groups and mailing list
(4) Others (probably a partially overlapping group with (3))
just find more rules and requirements for more boilerplate
undesirable. They would (at least mostly) be happy if lots
of off-list notes went to authors of I-Ds for which the
discussion forum wasn't clear, asking them about the
discussion forum and recommending that it be included in
the next draft.
But flip it around and see what you get: Why should I, as a
document author who wants to notify people where the
discussion of the draft should take place, be forced to use
either an ad-hoc location in the document or have to send out a
bunch of additional emails? Why can't there be an *OPTIONAL*
well known location in our draft format (and corresponding XML
element(s)) that automated tools can pick up on so at a
minimum this information can go out as part of the new draft
notifications?
In other words, the issue of whether or not there's a well
defined way to incorporate this information is almost
entirely orthogonal to whether or not we require it's presence.
Absolutely. If whomever is maintaining the tool sets wants to
provide that as an option element (or equivalent) for whatever
source language they are supporting, I have no problem with it
at all (and would be happy to convert my ad hoc mechanisms for
supplying that information to use it as I revise documents). We
disagree in that I don't personally think it is worth the
trouble because I think we could as easily advise people to use
either a last subsection of an Introduction section or a <note>,
but I'm not maintaining the tools and therefore don't feel
entitled to a vote.
I have only two concerns:
(1) I don't want to see this made a requirement, largely because
I think it could easily turn into a bureaucratic mess.
It certainly does not make sense for it to be a requirement for drafts in
general. I'm less sure when it comes to drafts under active discussion - I
really don't have a problem with "repost that so everyone knows where to go".
(2) I don't want to see it (or anything else) back us into
either a requirement that everyone use xml2rfc or a requirement
that the source for I-Ds be submitted along with the formatted
ASCII-text versions. So, while "optional well known location in
our draft format" is fine with me, tools that are expected to
pick information up by parsing XML and reading XML elements
aren't... simply because they would require that I-Ds be
prepared in XML and that the XML be generally available at
posting time.
I agree with trying to keep things this way, but I also think that as the
community's tools become more refined and sophisticated some amount of lossage
associated with their non-use is going to be unavoidable.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf