+1 to what Joel said.
But with the proviso that the RFC and ID formats are not something the RFCInterest group should decide by themselves. It might be appropriate to do a -bis on RFC7991 to reflect the state of the tools after the initial rollout. But the format has to evolve to meet the needs of the IETF as a whole, not just the interest group.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:35 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I believe that the stated policy was that once there was a rolled out
v3, the RFC would indeed be superseded (obsoleted) by a new one.
Short of insisting on sticking with things which experience proved were
mistakes, I do not see what other choice there was / is.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/28/2019 11:44 AM, Kent Watsen 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.
>
>
> Having spent some time looking at V3, I can attest that RFC 7991 does
> not reflect what `xml2rfc` implements. Many of the deviations are
> captured by draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-09. An
> rfc7991bis is needed to reflect reality.
>
> Kent
>
