[rfc-i] New version of the v2 and v3 examples draft

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Jan 21 08:21:18 PST 2015

On 2015-01-21 17:14, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> ...
>>>> 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.

Yes. We can do that in v2, and still can do it.

What I'm concerned with are (a) empty values and (b) names that do not 
indicate a series.

>> 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>?

I propose to just leave /rfc/@category intact.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list