On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 07:22:20PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > 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.) Well, I don't really care what it is, as long as a) we get the typesetting right, b) we get the UI right. Markdown seems incomplete. XML with webby $EDITOR tooling would do. > > 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? PKIX extensions (e.g., SANs). Kerberos extensions. TLS extensions. SSHv2 extensions. And so on and on. > > 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. Yes. And I think we have enough material to justify a BoF.
