Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] sending out an update re: xml2rfc v2 transition

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:48:14 -0700

OK, would someone tell me how it got to be July 1 already?

I would like to send out the following message to ietf-announce and
rfc-interest.  It is (mostly) a repeat of what was sent in April, with
some clarifications based on the comments provided on rfc-interest after
that April message went out.  Any concerns or requests for
modification?  I would like to send this out tomorrow, Wednesday, 2 July
2014.

Thanks!
---

As a reminder to the community, the RFC Editor is transitioning completely 
to xml2rfc v2 for processing XML source for drafts this month.  That 
means that we will not be able to benefit from your XML source if it
doesn't 
work with xml2rfc v2.  Since we do appreciate receiving XML source for the 
drafts which are approved for publication, we encourage those who are still 
working with a tool-chain based on xml2rfc v1 (the TCL releases) to 
transition to v2 (the Python releases).  The xml2rfc v2 processor is
more strict
about handling non-wellformed or invalid XML.  Please see
<http://xml2rfc.ietf.org> for more detail regarding strict handling of XML.

The RFC Editor will continue to accept XML source for Internet-Drafts
created 
using v1 that were approved for publication by 30 June 2014.

Authors may also continue to submit documents in nroff or txt if an XML
source is not available. 

The original announcement is available here:
_<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg12251.html>_

If you have questions about xml2rfc v2, please send them to the xml2rfc
mailing list _<[email-masked]>_.

Heather Flanagan, RFC Series Editor

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 22:42:59 -0400

On 7/1/14, 7:48 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> some clarifications based on the comments provided on rfc-interest 
> after that April message went out.  Any concerns or requests for 
> modification?  I would like to send this out tomorrow, Wednesday, 2 
> July 2014.

Looks fine to me.

     Tony Hansen

> transition to v2 (the Python releases).The xml2rfc v2 processor is 
> more strict
> about handling non-wellformed or invalid XML.Please see
> Authors may also continue to submit documents in nroff or txt if an 
> XML source is not available.
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 08:46:15 +0200

On 2014-07-02 01:48, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> means that we will not be able to benefit from your XML source if it doesn't

"will not be able to benefit from your XML source" is IMHO factually 
incorrect. It's still better to start with a almost usable XML rather 
than with plain text.

I also note that there's still breakage in v2, as seen in 
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-prudhommeaux-http-status-2nn-00.txt> 
(and yes, I believe there's a ticket about that issue already).

> transition to v2 (the Python releases).The xml2rfc v2 processor is more
> strict

Insert two SPs here :-)

> using v1 that were approved for publication by 30 June 2014.

Otherwise, you throw it away? That really doesn't make sense.

I understand the intent, but the message simply is misleading.

 > ...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 07:54:57 -0700

> incorrect. It's still better to start with a almost usable XML rather

And in reality, if it's a really easy fix, the editors may just take
care of it. But introducing that grey line in this text isn't helpful.

> (and yes, I believe there's a ticket about that issue already).

If we wait for software to be entirely without bugs, we'll never get
anywhere.

>> <http://xml2rfc.ietf.org> for more detail regarding strict handling
Thanks, I know how you love the double-space system.  :-)

> I understand the intent, but the message simply is misleading.
Otherwise we'll ask them to do the necessary fixes themselves.

-Heather

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:11:19 +0200

>> (and yes, I believe there's a ticket about that issue already).

Such as <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/234>.

> If we wait for software to be entirely without bugs, we'll never get

That's true, but on the other hand 4.5 months is a quite long time for 
something that's clearly broken and easy to reproduce.

Note that this should not be understood as me blaming the volunteers 
working on the Python code. Just pointing out that getting these things 
right takes time, and declaring EOL for something that works might be 
premature.

> Thanks, I know how you love the double-space system.  :-)

:-) No, seriously. Two are missing after sentence endings.

> Otherwise we'll ask them to do the necessary fixes themselves.

...can we just state that then?

Best regards, Julian