Hi.
This draft is now in the posting queue (awaiting initial version
approval as of a few minutes ago). It reflects the text
discussed with John Leslie and my reaction to Tony's reference
suggestion, both as discussed in earlier notes, plus the changes
I summarized earlier.
I'm aware of the several editorial issues, but think the
document is adequate for the WG --which has had too little
technical work for too long-- to have a look at.
Those known issues are as follows. Comments about what to do
about them are welcome, but please don't waste time telling us
they are issues:
(1) Between changes necessitated by xml2rfc, since as
eliminating citation anchors that start with digits, and
most new references that I've added using the [RFCnnnn]
form rather than descriptive names, the style of
citation anchors is now wildly inconsistent. Unless
there is consensus that doing so would be a bad idea,
I'm going to rationalize them.
(2) In recent years, my attitude toward the use of
citation anchors as subjects or objects of sentences has
evolved from "obnoxious, but everyone is doing it" to
"not in any document I'm responsible for". So,
partially in memory of Mike Padlipsky, that usage is
going to be corrected (note that this will help with
(1)).
(3) The conversion of the table of extensions in Section
7 from the artwork-like form of 4409 to an xml-based
texttable (necessary to make the references work) did
not yield beauty. I'm not going to start fussing with
column widths until the WG concludes that the content is
right and even then may be inclined to leave that to the
RFC Editor unless the WG directs otherwise.
(4) 4409 used several compound references (one citation
anchor, several RFCs). Xml2rfc is quite hostile to
those. The pre-evaluation document pointed out that at
least a few of them were unnecessary. I've taken them
all out. Anyone who objects should speak up.
(5) In editing, I noticed a possible organizational
matter and became somewhat concerned about it. If no
one else notices or thinks it is a problem, I expect to
leave things as they are.
Comments and suggestions welcome. Since the hard work should
have been complete with the pre-evaluation document, my hope is
that we can swiftly review and iterate on the text changes and
then move this into WG LC. Of course, the WG, the co-chairs,
and the IESG may have other ideas, but I can hope.
john
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
