[rfc-i] New version of the v2 and v3 examples draft
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Jan 21 08:14:17 PST 2015
On Jan 21, 2015, at 7:52 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2015-01-21 16:36, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> OK, it might be correct according to the draft,
>> It is. That is, Tony is correct and Julian's "No" is wrong.
>>> but it *is* awful.
>> And yet you have not proposed anything better...
>>> Let's find a solution that is less weird. A seriesInfo where "value" is empty doesn't make any sense; it's a hack.
>> It makes sense and is a hack.
>> Other designs are welcome. However, before you propose one, remember that you need to change both <front> and <seriesInfo>, and that you need to think about the fact that in references, we know the status of the document, but in Internet Drafts, we don't.
> Do we need this information inside a <reference>? I believe the answer is "no".
Hrm, I would have thought that a reference to RFC 2119 should also say that it is BCP 19.
> The draft currently say:
>> ...Another <seriesInfo> element determines
>> the "maturity level" (see Section 4 of [RFC2026]), using values of
>> "std" for "Standards Track", "bcp" for "BCP", "info" for
>> "Informational", "exp" for "Experimental", and "historic" for
>> "Historic". The "name" attributes of those multiple <seriesInfo>
>> elements interact as described in the section on <seriesInfo>.
> ...where seriesInfo doesn't seem to define this interaction.
> We previously had that information as "category" attribute; why can't we just leave it there? What am I missing?
> (I'm ok with deprecating things where we actually have something better, but abusing <seriesInfo> doesn't sound like an improvement to me)
Are you proposing seriesInfo/@category? If so, would you also use that for <rfc><front><seriesInfo> for an Internet Draft? Or are you prosing seriesInfo/@category and seriesInfo/@intendedCategory, which you can't have both of in a <seriesInfo>?
More information about the rfc-interest