[rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] contributors section & tools

Toerless Eckert tte at cs.fau.de
Thu Jul 16 11:44:36 PDT 2020


On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:35:31PM -0400, John R Levine wrote:
> > I would recommend to start updating the URL on https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/
> > from RFC7991 to whatever would be the best place to look for the current
> > supported grammar. This is the place where i think everbody will go looking
> > for what grammar there is, and "contact" is not in RFC7991.
> 
> The only place the actual grammar appears is in xml2rfc and the copy at the
> website below.  Julian and I are slowly updating RFC 7991 at
> https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis

Ok, but you did not comment on my ask. Let me repeat my ask in a hopefully
clearer way:

Q1: Who can update https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/

Q2: Can we please update the third paragraph of that URL to read somthing like:

-----------------
OLD:

The v3 (RFC7991) update to the xml2rfc language has been published. 

ADD: 

The v3 langauge version is updated by draft-iab-rfc7991bis which includes more language
feature. The tool on this web-page is tracking that draft. The
actual complete syntax used by this tool is at https://github.com/rfc-format/v3grammar

OLD:

Continuing discussion on the v3 update are being held on the rfc-dev at ietf.org list. Additional tools relevant to the v3 work can be found on the experimental page. (General questions on RFC formats should be discussed on the rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org list.)
------------------

If this text was on the xml2rfc URL, you would IMHO have a lot more users experimenting with
the latest undocumented rfc7991bis features and providing feedback to the
mailing lists.

Cheers
    Toerless

> R's,
> John
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 08:03:00PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > On 16.07.2020 18:16, John R Levine wrote:
> > > > In article <20200716013048.GB35840 at faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
> > > > you write:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nice. Who'd know v3 had undocumented features ;-))
> > > > 
> > > > Way too many.  The actual grammar used in published RFCs is here:
> > > > 
> > > > https://github.com/rfc-format/v3grammar
> > > > 
> > > > There are five versions, each intended to be backward compatible with
> > > > the previous ones.
> > > > ...
> > > 
> > > Well, we could (a) publish the updated RFC7991bis draft, and (b) try to
> > > get more people involved into revising it.


-- 
---
tte at cs.fau.de


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list