+1. I agree. Regards, Ed Juskevicius -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke Sent: March 7, 2009 3:46 AM To: Scott Lawrence Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf