Subject: RE: Image attachments to ASCII RFCs (was: Re: Last Call: 'Propose d Experiment: Normative Format in Addition to ASCII Text' to Experimental RFC (draft-ash-alt-formats))

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:02:01 -0700 (PDT)

*> 
  *> > 	What would be useful - in even more than this context -
  *> > would be if there was a peer-level directory where source for
  *> > all RFCs would be kept adjacent to the RFCs derived from them.

The RFC Editor provides nroff source for any RFC upon request, and has
always done so.

  *> 
  *> Quite true. But as long as the RFC Editor finds it necessary to use a
  *> multi-stage process to produce RFCs with hand tweaking of the output at
  *> different stages, I doubt that they will be willing to do this because the
  *> input document will not in fact reproduce what's in the RFC. This is why tool
  *> improvement to eliminate the need for hand tweaking is so important. But
  *> in the meantime, I would hope the RFC Editor would be willing to hand back
  *> the xml2rfc source to the author. It's a stopgap, but a useful stopgap.

We are willing to do so, and have been doing so. You just have to ask.

In the current process we have to include a disclaimer that the final
AUTH48 corrections and formatting niceties may not be included in the
XML source we give back.  However, it is still useful as a starting
point for later documents.  Note that this is potentially a little
dangerous, though, because people might start archiving the
almost-correct XML and later regenerate an almost-correct copy of the
document.

  *> 
  *> I don't know what needs to be done to make xml2rfc better, but I sure wish the
  *> RFC Editor would spend whatever time it takes with the folks who work on
  *> xml2rfc to accomplish this.

As we have announced at several plenary reports (does anyone ever pay
attention??), the RFC Editor has been trying to work with the xml2rfc
fraternity to make xml2rfc into an effective document formatting tool.
It has not been quick or easy.  I just checked with one of our editors,
Alice Hagens, who uses xml2rfc regularly.  She tells me that she
entered several issues into the xml2rfc tracker, but she does not think
"anyone is looking at it any more."  There is unfortunately a
fundamental disconnect: philosophically, the xml2rfc folks don't WANT
it to be an effective markup language, which is essentially what is
needed.

Bob Braden

  *> 
  *> > 	In addition to giving us some concrete evidence of how
  *> > many RFCs use each source format, it would greatly simplify
  *> > the process of writing new drafts...
  *> 
  *> Sure - a central repository makes it easy for anyone to come along and produce
  *> a document revision. Depending on authors preserving input sources is not
  *> nearly as flexible.
  *> 
  *> 				Ned
  *> 
  *> _______________________________________________
  *> 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: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:22:10 -0400

On 6/20/06, Bob Braden <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [Alice] tells me that she
> "anyone is looking at it any more."

This is parly my fault - I picked the wrong technology for the tracker
and it doesn't notify interested parties upon changes.  I'm still
interested in working on these problems but I'm so interrupt-driven
that I don't often have a chance to poll the tracker.

  Bill

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:25:10 -0700 (PDT)

> it to be an effective markup language, which is essentially what is

Aw, Bob ... that just isn't right.  I don't know about the xml2rfc tracker,
because I've never seen the beast.  But, if you post a note to the mailing
list, you get pretty much instant service.

Sorry to sound annoyed ... there's been quite a bit of xml2rfc bashing,
and much of it has been sadly misinformed.  First, this has always been
a non-sanctioned, non-approved, volunteer effort.  Volunteer 1 was /mtr,
but quite a few others joined in.  And, as was previously said, the
main reason this tool was built was to make our own lives much easier.

That said, there has always been a desire to get this stuff to enter the
mainstream, and because of that a whole bunch of little tweaks have been
entered based on user needs or perceived needs and a fairly robust
infrastructure is in place to support authors (e.g., a citation database,
a mailing list, interoperable implementations).

May I make a suggestion to both the office of the RFC Editor and to the
IESG?  This sounds like a classic case for leadership.  How about 
starting up a working group?  Give it a capable chair, support from
the AD (Brian), and twist some arms to get good people to participate.
I know this is a radical suggestion, but it just might work.

Charter might be:

1. Read the perpetual traffic on this list, look at the w3c method,
xml2rfc, word, and others, and see if there is any consensus on a
workable track (or tracks) to go forward.  Pick the most likely
candidate or candidates and work through the functionality issues.

2. Have that track (or tracks) generate a full spec (e.g., in the
case of xml2rfc, a revision of the basic RFC) and working code.
If there is more than 1 track, ask for comment on the options
on the table (no fair comparing an option on the table to a 
theoretical one that doesn't have with full specs and running code)
and then pick one.

3. Additionally, revise 2223bis and turn it into an rfc so our document 
production process has a normative reference to cite.

If we don't trust a working group to come to closure, then have
the IESG/IAB name a committee to study the problem and report back
a workable path.  At least we'd have a real option on the table.
This isn't working as a committee-of-the-whole and I'd be perfectly
happy to defer to a subset of my colleagues to "solve" the problem.

Carl

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:25:26 -0700

On Jun 20, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Carl Malamud wrote:

> the AD (Brian), and twist some arms

I'd find some cycles for such a project.  -Tim

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:28:20 -0700

> We are willing to do so, and have been doing so. You just have to ask.

Yes, but what you get back doesn't correspond to the RFC, because of  
the downstream edits.  A volunteer just went through a fairly  
laborious process to reconstruct the XML version of RFC4287 so that  
an HTML version could be made available  (Yes, I know only the ASCII  
version is normative).  To me it seems that this work should not be  
necessary.    -Tim

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:14:13 +0200

Carl,

> I know this is a radical suggestion, but it just might work.

How about people volunteer to help the effort or how about we fund the
RFC Editor to work with the XML2RFC people?  Simply having a working
group does NOT produce running code.  Let's not have committees unless
we have an answer to this question.

Eliot

---

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:29:31 +0200

As we have announced at several plenary reports (does anyone ever pay
attention??), 
the RFC Editor has been trying to work with the xml2rfc fraternity to
make xml2rfc into an effective document formatting tool.
It has not been quick or easy.  I just checked with one of our editors,
Alice Hagens, who uses xml2rfc regularly.  
She tells me that she entered several issues into the xml2rfc tracker,
but she does not think "anyone is looking at it any more."  

[YJS] I have heard it several times.

But when I say that we have a problem in developing the document
handling tools,
people on this list tell me that we aren't even doing any development,
that this is just a groupd of volunteers, and that their progress in no
way
effects the process.

---

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:46:17 +0200

> How about people volunteer to help the effort or how about we fund the
RFC Editor to work with the XML2RFC people?  
> Simply having a working group does NOT produce running code.  Let's
not have committees unless we have an answer to this question.

Eliot

The simple answer is that the IETF should be developing
neither a document creation tool nor a tracking tool,
nor funding the creation or such tools,
nor setting up committees to develop specifications for such tools.

There are perfectly good document creation and tracking tools available.

When are we going to get back to work relevant to the IETF?

RFC 3935 is effectively a charter for the IETF as a whole.
It states

   The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant
   technical and engineering documents that influence the way people
   design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the
   Internet work better.  These documents include protocol standards,
   best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds.

I believe that some people are mis-interpreting this statement.

I propose adding as explicit non-goals 
 * the developing of new document creation tools
 * the developing of new version tracking tools
 * the development of new document archival processes

Y(J)S

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:09:47 +0800

Sorry for a late followup here...

> a mailing list, interoperable implementations).

I just finished and submitted Yet Another Draft Using XML2RFC, and wanted to 
respond to Carl's note.

Thank you, to the xml2rfc volunteers, for providing a clunky yet usable 
tool, that works well enough for me to revise a draft, starting on Tuesday, 
and submit it this afternoon, with somewhat dodgey Internet connectivity, 
with confidence that I have current boilerplate, etc.

It's not everything I would want  - actually, the suggestion I saw this week 
to generate HTML and paste it into Word for spelling/grammar checking helped 
a lot! - but it works well enough that I haven't even bothered installing an 
XML editor locally.

I'm an XML2RFC outsider, but when I've been subscribed to the mailing list, 
I saw what Carl was describing - a really helpful community that doesn't 
want to make random changes, but DOES want to make changes that actually 
improve the tool and its usability. Maybe it would be worth having an 
XML2RFC Bar BOF in Montreal, just to say "thank you" with beer.

And, while I'm typing - thank you to the Tools group, for providing entirely 
usable IDnits checking (which I would need more, if XML2RFC wasn't so 
careful) and especially for providing very helpful ID-diff capability, which 
was very helpful because I was revising text with a co-author twelve time 
zones away, who is just too darned busy to try to figure out what I changed, 
and I feel a lot better being able to say "and here's the diffs".

Thanks,

Spencer Dawkins

p.s. If you happen to think that helping Spencer generate more drafts is NOT 
a good thing - well, don't blame the XML2RFC guys! Maybe if there was an 
output option called "Consistent and Logically Correct TXT"...  perhaps I 
should suggest that at the Bar BOF? There may be interest from others :-)