[rfc-i] Determining output type in v3

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu May 8 08:24:22 PDT 2014


On May 8, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-05-08 16:56, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On May 7, 2014, at 11:38 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>>>> - Added the optional "outputType" to <rfc> to tell processors what kind of document is being produced: an Internet Draft, an RFC, or a private document.
>>> 
>>> This overlaps with the already existing information about draft name/RFC number and thus needlessly creates potential ambiguities.
>> 
>> Correct. However, if the alternative is to rely on the style of name in rfc/@docName, that doesn't leave room for private documents, which is the motivation for this feature. I guess we could back out this addition and say "if docName starts with 'draft-', it will be formatted as a draft; if docName starts with 'rfc' it will be formatted as an RFC; if you want a private document, the docName must start with a different string".
>> 
>> I kinda prefer a definitive statement such as outputType, but could easily go with heuristics based on docName.
> 
> Actually, docName will be empty for RFCs (we have the number attribute for RFCs...).

Yeeps, forgot about that one. That simplifies the heuristic to "if docName starts with 'draft-', it will be formatted as a draft; if you want a private document, the docName must start with a different string".

> How about using "submissionType"; for instance, with a new value "private"?

That name would work too.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list