Subject: RE: Alternative formats for IDs

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:02:44 -0800 (PST)

*> From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
  *> To: "'Paul Hoffman'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
  *> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:13:35 -0500

  *> 	The RFC editor has some problems which have not, to my knowledge,
  *> been	enumerated.
  *> 

Your knowledge is apparently incomplete.  The RFC Editor has been
actively experimenting with using xml2rfc for publication, and we have
been passing our problems along to the tools team.  As we get more
experience, new ones show up.  There is not currently a version of
xml2rfc that meets our needs.  Some of our editors do the major
editing in XML, but they find it most efficient and effective to
switch to nroff for the final cleanup of the (ASCII) document format.

Bob Braden

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

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:00:48 -0800 (PST)

> switch to nroff for the final cleanup of the (ASCII) document format.

Rather than sending such suggestions to the IETF tools team, why not bring them
up on the xml2rfc list? Given that I don't see names like "Charles Levert" and
"Julian Reschke" and "Marshall Rose" on the current tools team list, I'm a
little concerned that certain things might be lost in process of getting them
from the tools team to the actual xml2rfc tool maintainers.

In any case, Paul can hardly be blamed for being uninformed when the issues
aren't being brought up in what I, at least, think is clearly the correct
venue.

				Ned

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:53:47 +0100

> switch to nroff for the final cleanup of the (ASCII) document format.

This must be a different tools team than the IETF Tools-team.  We've
not seen any such feedback.  

Presumably you mean the xml2rfc maintainers?  Although in that case it's
a bit disappointing that this feedback then must have been passed along
in private, rather than on the xml2rfc mailing list - I've not noticed
such there.  

It would have been instructive to see the feedback on the list in order
to better understand what would make things easier in the RFC editing
work.

	Henrik (for the Tools team)

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:59:01 +0100

> from the tools team to the actual xml2rfc tool maintainers.

I fully agree.  Comments should go to the xml2rfc list.  And as a matter of
fact, the tools team has not received any feedback or comments from the
RFC-Editor regarding the xml2rfc tool.  If we had, we would have forwarded it
to the xml2rfc list.

	Henrik

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:50:26 -0500

On 1/11/06, Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  the tools team has not received any feedback or comments from the

Aaron (for the RFC Editor) asked me to proxy their findings, and I
worked with Charles and Marshall directly instead of going through the
list; perhaps this was a mistake.

The comments from the RFC Editor can be found at
http://rtg.ietf.org/Members/BillFenner/rfced-xml/FrontPage/issuetracker,
and many of them are fixed in xml2rfc 1.31a4.

  Bill

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:11:34 +0100

> and many of them are fixed in xml2rfc 1.31a4.

Ah. Thank you. Good to see the issues. And in an issue tracker, even :-)

	Henrik

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:07:54 -0500

> list; perhaps this was a mistake.

I don't think so.  In order to work correctly, our process requires that 
protocol design and decision-making be done in public.

It does not require that bug reports be filed in public.

-- Jeff