> --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. 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf