On an allied topic, I notice that a recent I-D - draft-ietf-sidr-arch-06.txt - published March 9, 2009, had a running heading which included 'November 2008'. Paranoid as I am, I immediately link this date to RFC5378 and the time when the IETF Trust introduced the new rules for IPR.
Is there a connection orr is there some more innocent explanation as to why the running heading is not March 2009? Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.resc...@gmx.de> To: "Scott Lawrence" <scott.lawre...@nortel.com> Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-i...@jck.com>; <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Abstract on Page 1? > Scott Lawrence wrote: > > ... > > This is a trivial change for the generation tools to make - at worst it > > will make one generation of diffs slightly more difficult (and I'd be > > happy to trade one generation of poor diffs for this, so for me just > > don't worry about fixing the diff tools). > > ... > > At this point, no change to the boilerplate is trivial anymore. > > For xml2rfc, we need to > > - define how to select the new behavior (date? ipr value? rfc number?); > if the behavior is not explicitly selected in the source, we need > heuristics when to use the old one and when to use the new one (keep in > mind that the tools need to be able to generate historic documents as well) > > - add new test cases > > - add documentation > > So, I'm not against another re-organization, but, in this time, PLEASE: > > - plan it well (think of all consequences for both I-Ds and RFCs) > > - make the requirements precise and actually implementable (remember: > "must be on page 1" :-) > > - give the tool developers sufficient time; optimally let *then* decide > when the cutover date should be > > > BR, Julian > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
