On 28.08.2019 16:57, Richard Barnes wrote:
Julian - Could you please expand on these concerns for those of us who have not been involved? The "no single spec" one seems especially concerning. ...
There's more context over here: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc-dev/4klkISejMULrdA8K8JVvgmdmwiA>. It's nice that Heather explained her view over there. However I remain unconvinced that what she summarized there will lead to a V3 definition that is suitable to be *the* canonical format, and also work well for implementers other than the xml2rfc author (that is, alternate formatters, tools *producing* V3, and tools doing other interesting things with V3 files). IMHO we need to restart the work on 7991bis (and related docs, such as the HTML format and the preptool definition), and do that in a transparent way. I understand that this document does not require IETF consensus, but that also doesn't mean it's ok not to properly follow up on the implementer feedback that was sent since the publication of RFC799x.. Best regards, Julian
