On 7/8/19 6:33 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
xml2rfc is great, but it lacks wiki-ness, though we could probably
develop HTML+JS tooling to give xml2rfc that missing wiki-ness.
Actually I'd love it if xml2rfc were phased out in favor of something
better. IMO it imposes a significant barrier to contributions,
especially from newer IETF participants, but really from everybody.
But I realize that it's hard for IETF to build and maintain real
document editing tools that run on everybody's platforms. It's hard
enough to maintain xml2rfc. And I could certainly imagine worse tools,
like (gasp!) Word.
(I'm not exactly fond of wikis' UIs either.)
Also, think of the channel binding type IANA registry, which doesn't
require an RFC for each type, just a specification somewhere. A lot of
what we do in the IETF doesn't really need a publication process as
heavy-duty as the RFC publication process.
Well, IANA exists for the case you're citing already. (such things
used to be published in RFCs) What other cases do you have in mind?
None of the above addresses the need for I-D stability markers. We're
identifying a lot of related issues and thinking up possible solutions.
Let's not lose track of the specific needs/problems we identify.
Keeping explicit track of those things in one place seems like a good
next step.
Keith
