--On Monday, August 08, 2011 13:34 -0700 ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] >> > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 9:19 AM >> > To: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf@xxxxxxxx >> > 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. (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. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf