On 28.08.2019 18:34, Joel M. Halpern 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I believe that the stated policy was that once there was a rolled out v3, the RFC would indeed be superseded (obsoleted) by a new one. ...
The stated policy was that the specs would be revised based on implementation feedback *while* the implementation happens. What seems to be happening now is that what was implemented will be rubberstamped as "v3" after the fact. Don't get me wrong: I actually support many changes that were made. I also support most of the additions - and I have implemented them. It's just that some of the changes IMHO go into the wrong direction, and I'd like to see an actual discussion about these things happening.
Short of insisting on sticking with things which experience proved were mistakes, I do not see what other choice there was / is. ...
Fixing mistakes is fine. But the scope of changes goes way beyond that. On the other hand, other issues remain unaddressed. Example: how to format acknowledgements - leading to authors putting prose into artwork to get the ASCII output they want (see recent xml2rfc mailing list threads with sample V3 documents). Best regards, Julian
