[rfc-i] Determining output type in v3

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Thu May 8 09:19:13 PDT 2014


On 5/8/14 11:14 AM, Julian Reschke 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...).

I would like the draft name to be preserved after the document becomes 
an RFC. For those who work on a document for a long time it is the name 
that is remembered, and ought to remain available.

	Thanks,
	Paul K


> How about using "submissionType"; for instance, with a new value "private"?
>
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list