[rfc-i] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Feb 13 12:14:19 PST 2020


This is not about the technical aspect of your message.

Can you clarify why this is RSOC business? I don't understand where it fits in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6635#section-3.1. I would have expected any proposals to come from the (acting) RSE.

   Brian Carpenter

On 14-Feb-20 08:10, Sarah Banks wrote:
> Hello IAB and RFC-interest community,
> 	The RSOC has been following discussion of the issues encountered in deploying the v3 RFC format. These issues have necessitated several changes to the format as bugs and ambiguities are found. While we believe that this is necessary, we have a concern that the incremental nature of these changes will result in will result in RFCs published in more than one XML format over time, as the adjustments are made.
> 	The Temporary RFC Series Project Manager is currently investigating how many of the already-executed as well as anticipated changes might result in backwards-incompatible changes to the format, to get a better sense of scale. 
> 	It could be that having multiple such formats in the corpus of RFCs will be an acceptable outcome; or, a decision could be made to re-publish the affected "interim format" RFCs in the final v3 format. We don't believe it's necessary to make that decision now, but we're sharing this information with the broader community for discussion.
> Thanks,
> Sarah
> For the RSOC
> _______________________________________________
> 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