--On Monday, May 14, 2018 11:19 +0200 Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John, > > Thank you for the reply. > > I understand the need of universal reachability, separation of > experiments, and avoid of appeals. > > Allow me to wonder though whether the non-IETF XML format went > through such experimenting before being enforced at IETF scale. While I'm not sure what the two have to do with each other or exactly what you are referring to, if you are referring to what is known as the xml2rfc format, (1) It is not "being enforced" (in either version). You are free to prepare and submit I-Ds, or even final pre-publication RFC drafts in plain ASCII text format without getting anywhere near XML. (2) And, yes, there has been extensive experimentation and discussion. Some of us are fairly unhappy with the new version and its documentation, but that doesn't change the history of discussion, documentation, and, apparently, rough consensus. john > > Alex > > Le 04/05/2018 à 13:48, John C Klensin a écrit : >> Personal opinion only... >> >> A key part of the intent of Internet Drafts is that they be >> generally available to anyone interested on the Internet. I >> understand the motivations for experiments and demonstrations >> but, if something is posted that is deliberately inaccessible >> to someone who cannot not or will not use IPv6, it >> invalidates the function of the document as a >> generally-accessible I-D and presumably could result in a >> process problem (or appeal) if there were any attempt to move >> it into an IETF consensus process. >> >> Please do demonstrations and experiments in another way.
