Subject: Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:00:44 -0800 (PST)

*> 
  *> 
  *> Hence the desire to have the RFC Editor use xml2rfc, rather than nroff.
  *> 

Dave,

I am afraid you are injecting confusion.  Use nroff for what?  The RFC
Editor does not publish nroff, it publishes ASCII text.  The tool we
use to prepare ASCII for publication happens to be nroff, because it is
simple, effective, and efficient.

The RFC Editor has experimented with using xml2rfc for this purpose,
and found it awkward and inefficent for producing properly formatted
ASCII text.  But the two issues of primary concern to the IETF should
be the acceptable input formats (currently ASCII text and/or RFC 2629
XML) and the desired publication format(s).

The issues under discussion should be: (1) whether the RFC Editor
should publish RFCs in some XML-based structural document descriptor
language, (2) whether this should be in particular the DTD defined in
RFC 2629, (3) whether an XML version should be co-authoritative with an
ASCII version or should be primary or secondary to the ASCII version,
(4) if an XML version is to be published as authoritative, how to
ensure that it is correct and consistent with the ASCII version, if
any.

All this is independent of the fact that xml2rfc is a boon to authors.
That is true today, but it has little to do with the publication process
or the publication format.

Bob Braden

  *> Were there still regular use of nroff in the broad community, there might be 
  *> an argument in favor of continuing to have it as the internal representation 
  *> of authoritative rfc text.
  *> 
  *> But there isn't.  Whereas xml2rfc has been gaining broad (and enthusiastic) 
  *> adoption.
  *> 
  *> d/
  *> 
  *> -- 
  *> 
  *> Dave Crocker
  *> Brandenburg InternetWorking
  *> <http://bbiw.net>
  *> 
  *> _______________________________________________
  *> Ietf mailing list
  *> [email-masked]
  *> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
  *> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:21:20 -0800

Bob,

> simple, effective, and efficient.

1. As long as the RFC Editor uses a formatting language that is not in 
common use, a translation into the format will be required.  Translations 
are never free, even when automated, and they often are problematic.

2. As long as the published version is free-form ascii, then revising a 
document with tools that assist in document development, with such things as 
automated formatting, will be problematic at best.

Hence, when authors can work on the authoritative text using THE SAME 
structured form as is used by the RFC Editor, the community will experience 
two significant benefits:

1. Reduced costs of RFC Editor processing, by virtue of not having to do the 
translation and being able to have automated submission tools vet the 
document against basic errors.

2. Reduced costs of document revision, by being able to start with an 
attribute-rich format, rather than one lacking any attribute information at all.

> ASCII text. 

I do not recall seeing these problems discussed on the xml2rfc mailing list.

Have you attempted to get the problems fixed?

  But the two issues of primary concern to the IETF should
> XML) and the desired publication format(s).

You left out:

      The format of the authoritative version that is available for later 
revision by potentially different authors

> ensure that it is correct and consistent with the ASCII version, if

that looks like a pretty good list, to me.

> or the publication format.

That is one of my points.

The fact that it is independent actually causes problems, as noted above and 
in previous postings.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:55:20 +0100

Bob Braden wrote:
> ...
> ...

Were the results of these experiments communicated to the xml2rfc 
maintainers? I would guess the problems can be fixed, after all.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:27:18 +1100

(1) yes, (2) yes, (3) XML primary, and (4) see (3).

(for what its worth)

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:19:44 -0500

Making the xml source available is a boon for those working on
subsequent revisions of a document. Many of the RFCs and I-Ds I've
worked on have been derivative of earlier RFCs, and having an
authorative source format available helps that considerably. Since I
grok nroff, I've been able to make good use of the nroff source on
occasion, and the RFC Editors have sometimes (in non-crunch-time
situations) been quite happy to provide that. I'd much prefer having the
source files available at all times so I didn't have to ask them, or
make do without during those crunch times.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:48:08 -0500

Just as a rough data point and to second Tony's note, I count about 120 
active Internet drafts that are labeled '*bis*'. There are probably many 
more that don't follow this naming convention. All of these are 
presumably based on earlier published documents.