Julian, are you really asking that we stop the rollout of v3, have an
extended working group process to design a new v3, and then develop
tools, etc. for that? I think the community would be very unhappy at
the delay.
And just to be clear, I am pretty sure there was input from lots of
constituencies at every stage of the development of the v3 we have in
front of us.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/28/2019 12:22 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
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
