[rfc-i] Why? (was Re: For v3: draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-02.txt)

Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net
Sat Feb 15 08:37:35 PST 2014


On 2/15/2014 8:03 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2014, at 11:46 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
> wrote:
>>> Changes have costs.  Let's explain they they are being incurred.
>
> The "cost" of a change from v2 to v3 is almost always incurred in the
> conversion tool. If you don't want to convert from v2 to v3, don't.

That assertion depends on very specific choices -- which I haven't seen 
being made clearly and formally, yet -- and an assumption of complete 
knowledge of everything that is affected.

It is essentially never correct, in terms of affecting the user population.

Changing an existing, diverse service almost always affects everyone, 
and usually affects more software than has been anticipated.


> Note that this is a purely presentational element and thus its use
> ought to be avoided.

Yes, but deleting a mechanism makes v3 incompatible with v2 source.


> If it "ought to be avoided", maybe it ought not to be allowed.

Wrong.

Or, rather, it's an impractical engineering philosophy, for systems 
involving humans.


> Allowing something that ought to be avoided forces the RFC Editor to
> manually make changes during the editing process. This costs money
> and time. Leaving in such a "feature" is in no one's best interest.

Huh?


d/

ps.  The meta-issue here is that changes to the draft should reflect 
clear agreements from this group's discussions.

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list