[rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] Host names and ownership of the XML coverter
henrik at levkowetz.com
Mon Jun 2 05:04:34 PDT 2014
On 2014-05-28 17:38 Paul Hoffman said:
> On May 28, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon at nominum.com> wrote:
>> I've never understood why we were using the xml.resource.org domain--it doesn't really make any sense, because "xml" is way too generic. So I don't think there's any value in continuing to use it. I think the rfc-editor.org/ietf.org split makes a lot of sense, iff the RSE agrees.
> Let's not rush into this. It reflects a major issue that people that have with the current use of the XML format that rarely is discussed.
> The XML format is used much more often for production of Internet Drafts than it is of RFCs. That is, authors who use XML to produce their drafts use the tool about five times as often as the RFC Editor does to turn the final draft into an RFC.
> Also note that drafts are just drafts: probably only half are RFCs-to-be.
> Given this, the XML conversion tool really should not belong to the RFC Editor, who has different needs for the tool than draft authors. Note that not all drafts are even in the IETF realm: some are from the IRTF, some are for the ISE, and some are "I just wanted to publish this to get people to comment". However, if someone is going to "own" the tool, it should probably be "the IETF" (as a steward for draft writers everywhere), and the RFC Editor either has their own (yuck) or significant input to the tool development for the RFC Editor's needs.
> And, yes, this affects the domain name used. If the domain name is in rfc-editor.org, people will expect tool support there.
> And, yes, "xml2rfc" is a bad name because most of the use of the tool is for writing Internet Drafts, not RFCs.
I'm more or less with you so far.
> Thus: xml.ietf.org or xmltool.ietf.org seem most appropriate.
But I don't see how you can draw these conclusions. From your earlier arguments,
the logic seems to lead to 'xml2draft.ietf.org'. Claiming the generic 'xml'
subdomain only for this, seems inappropriate -- I completely agree with Ted.
More information about the rfc-interest