[rfc-i] comments on draft-iab-rfcv3-preptool-01

Howard, Lee lee.howard at twcable.com
Wed Apr 27 12:52:42 PDT 2016

Instead of “blessed” can we use the language from the framework draft: "the authorized, recognized, accepted, and  archived version of the document"

Internet-draft submission takes XML and runs equivalent of xml2i-d.
I'm sure this is controversial, but I think this is insufficient: we need an authoring tool, or at least some way to generate a draft that has a lower barrier to entry than "learn our XML." If I've missed earlier conversations on this and there's a plan, I'd like to see it in the document (or in a different document, since this one is about the preptool, but I would welcome a pointer here).

< “When the    document is done with AUTH48 review”

> “When the document has passed AUTH48 review”

Otherwise, it’s unclear and could mean “When the document is created/prepare/processed with AUTH48”

Did you "do it with AUTH48"?

“It is probably a good idea for the RPC    to keep a copy of the input XML file from the various steps of the    RFC production process.”

If it’s a good idea, let’s tell them to do it. However, the only reason to do so is to research previous iterations to find changes that should have occurred, which might mean that the canonical XML version can be undermined. It’s up to us to decide whether it’s a good idea.

“if that attribute    or element already exists, the prep tool will check that the    attribute or element is correct”

 How does it know whether it’s correct?


#1 I feel like “entityrefs” and “includes” need to be in italics or have some punctuation around them. Do we need to expand or reference “DTD”?

#2 Do we have to make <x:include> both a verb and a noun in the same sentence? That sounds hard for even a native English speaker to parse. “<x:include>d XML may include more <x:include>s”


< idnits

> the “idnits” tool

“stops if there was an error.” This could be clearer: don’t stop upon encountering the first error, but if there are any errors, do not go on to the next step. So: “The prep tool displays all warnings and errors; it does not then proceed if there are any errors.”

#4-6 I think each of these is referring to our specific XML schema, and should include a link to draft-iab-xml2rfc.

#8 I had to look up “prepTime” in xml2rfc, which refers to rfc3339 to define format. Four-digit years, UTC, okay, but with UTC offset? Punctuation? 24 hour or 12 hour? Etc.

18. And again, is it proper to use XML tags as nouns?

42. The note pointing at a github tool is true, but will we publish this as an RFC with a URL reference?

6. “Would be useful” and “might be useful” are good observations, but not publishable.



This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20160427/5595b09d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list