[rfc-i] Host names and ownership of the XML coverter

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Jun 2 07:56:21 PDT 2014

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
<rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> On 6/2/14, 3:03 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Are you going to maintain them for Internet Drafts, W3C specs, etc, as
> well?
> I would prefer that we (RFC Editor) did so and I think it makes sense,
> but I have to make sure we have the resources to take it on.

Reasons for the RFC-Editor to maintain these:

1) The RFC-Editor needs to at least keep references stable during production.
2) The RFC-Editor is the authority for RFCs, it makes sense for it to
also be the authority for RFCs' bibxml.

Reasons to host all the bibxml series in one place:

a) It's been convenient.

Reasons to not host all the bibxml series in one place:

i. Third party SDOs might eventually want to be authoritative for
their documents' bibxml.

Regarding (1) my proposal would be to use git for bibxml revision
control and then use git commit hashes in xml2rfc XML to make sure
that a bibxml reference doesn't change.

I do think the tools ought to be prepared for all the bibxml series
having different canonical locations.

I don't see any reason for the IETF to not offer convenient mirrors in
one location for all the bibxml series it doesn't maintain.  E.g., to
make it easier for xml2rfc to resolve references.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list