Subject: [Cellar] auth48 coordination of XML files

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 11:33:35 -0400

Dave Rice <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >>>> So I think you might be working too hard here.
    >> 
    >>> Could you clarify: is it the work itself or the efficiency of the work
    >>> that you’re commenting upon?
    >> 
    >> efficiency: I think that you might be causing yourself undo pain.

    > Mind if we move this conversation back on list?I’m happy to step back
    > from this but would prefer this conversation occur with the other
    > authors.

Yes.
The RFC editor has FFV1 in AUTH48.  They have edited our *XML* directly to
put it into their format, which ignores our history of creating it via mmark
and some of the table driven efforts.

Dave seemed to trying to bring our XML (via mmark) into sync with what the
RFC-editor was doing.  I worried that Dave was expending a lot of effort
here.

Most WGs do not attempt to bring their "source" code inline with what the
RFC-editor produces.  The XML goes into the RFC-editor, and is transformed,
and that's that.
For WGs that have edited in XML, one can get the XML from from the rfc-editor
at the end, and just go with that if one will do a "bis" in a few years.

Dave pointed out that the things that the editor was doing would also apply
to ffv1-v4!  Ah, I say, GOOD POINT.

    >> Most drafts, once they are with the RFC editor, are no longer maintained in
    >> git.  (although i've argued that the rfc-editor should be sending a pull
    >> request back to authors, that isn't happening yet).

    > I would like some consensus on this. We’ve been working with a shared
    > base for the two documents nearly back to the working groups origins.

I would say that at this point, the ffv1 (not-v4) direction is dead.
We shouldn't think that we can make changes that matter to that direction.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Jerome Martinez <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 19:09:35 +0200

On 12/06/2021 17:33, Michael Richardson wrote:
> [...]

IMO the comments from auth48 are relevant for the quality of the FFV1 
doc whatever is the version, and FFV1 v0-v3 doc may be dead, but our doc 
is actually unique, mixing all versions together, so the change Dave is 
making is mainly for v4, and the v0-v3 "automatic backport" is only a 
side effect.
Advantage of putting auth48 changes in our working version is that 
theses changes will not have to be made again when we push the v4 
version, and our working copy of v4 is in a better shape.
It also permits to talk about the changes in public, maybe we could 
catch some other similar issues.

For theses reasons, I second the work of bringing auth48 changes back in 
our working version.
That said, it does not have to block the RFC publication, it is in parallel.

Jérôme