Subject: [Tools-discuss] updated Word template and tools

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:54:37 -0800

Hi, all,

A new version of my Word template is now available; it includes:

   - moved boilerplate to regular text to make it easier
     for authors to track the evolution of BCP 78
   - added Intended status: header item
   - added acknowledgement of use of this template

updated ID:
http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/draft-touch-msword-template-v2.0-05.txt

updated template:
http://www.isi.edu/touch/tools/2-Word-v2.0.template.dot
(this is always the most up-to-date one, if you just want to link it in)

perl post-processor:
http://www.isi.edu/touch/tools/2-Word-post-v2.0.pl
(same thing - always updated)

Feedback would be appreciated. This version appears to be final, and
will likely be submitted for publication as an RFC. Comments welcome.

Joe

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:45:13 +0100

Joe,

Thanks for this.

I'm not sure anything like this is ever truly 'final' though.
It seems like the sort of updatable materal that IONs are aimed
at.

      Brian

On 2007-02-12 23:54, Joe Touch wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:26:54 -0800

Although the template can continue to be updated to track boilerplate,
the description of what the template is and how it was designed should
be as stable as many other RFCs.

I.e., to the extent that the BCP78 docs are RFCs, this should as well.
If we did have a series solely for RFC administration purposes, then
both should be moved there.

In summary, I intend to submit this for publication as an Informational
RFC. That is the meaning behind "final".

Joe

-- 
----------------------------------------
Joe Touch
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:59:22 +0100

Joe,

I don't see the analogy with any BCPs - they are rules, whereas
xml2rfc, your template, and the various nroff templates still around
are just tools - very useful tools - but are they archival material?

I would ask the same question of RFC2629 if it came up today; in fact
it's out of date, which sort of proves my point. I'm sure there are other
RFCs that are also in this class. That's why we invented IONs, in fact.

    Brian

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:07:49 -0800

> are just tools - very useful tools - but are they archival material?

The tools no. The RFCs describing the tools - presumably in a
non-versionspecific way - yes.

> RFCs that are also in this class. That's why we invented IONs, in fact.

Who's "we", and where are IONs?

Joe

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:17:12 +0100

> Who's "we", and where are IONs?

"We" is presumably the IETF community, since RFC 4693 was approved
after a last call debate. The main culprits were Harald Alvestrand,
Cullen Jennings and myself.

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions.html

    Bfrian

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:35:39 -0800

> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions.html

That was agreed to as an experiment. There doesn't appear to be a
process in place for these as yet.

I'll consider participating in that track after BCP 78 is in that
series; that will convince me it exists and that it's ready for use.

Joe

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:40:01 +0100

> process in place for these as yet.

Well, we have three approved ones so far, and two more just exited
public comment.

> series; that will convince me it exists and that it's ready for use.

Joe, by definition, a BCP will *never* be an ION. IONs are not for
rules; they are only for operational procedures.

     Brian

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:04:59 -0800

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
> Well, we have three approved ones so far, and two more just exited

The RFC-Editor page has no reference to them. The IETF pages have no
clear indication of them. Your roadmap doc from Aug 06 has no reference
to them. RFC4228 has no indication of how to submit them. They're buried
under the IESG directory now. And this is not an IESG process doc.

While this is an interesting experiment, and might be useful for minutes
and the like, I don't agree that it is ready for other documents at this
point.

> rules; they are only for operational procedures.

See Section 3 of the RFC; it specifically calls for moving BCP 78 into
an ION. I appreciate that this may result in its losing the "BCP" title,
but I thought the idea above was otherwise clear.

Joe

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:54:38 +0100

On 2007-02-14 17:04, Joe Touch wrote:
> The RFC-Editor page has no reference to them. 

Of course not; they are IETF internal operations notes.

> The IETF pages have no
> clear indication of them. 

Correct. As long as they are formally an experiment, I don't think
it's appropriate to have them on the front page.

> Your roadmap doc from Aug 06 has no reference
> to them. 

Correct; but that is now a draft ION...

> RFC4228 has no indication of how to submit them.

No, because it describes our requirements for archival
publication for the world at large, not for IETF internals.

> They're buried

No, it's an IETF operational procedure (which can of course be of value
to independent submission authors, too).

> and the like, I don't agree that it is ready for other documents at this

It is not intended for minutes and the like. It's intended for exactly
what it's called: IETF Operational Notes. I don't get what's unclear
about that.

> an ION. 

More precisely,
   'the existence of the ION series may
    cause the following documents to be split into a "policy and
    principles" BCP and a "procedures and boilerplate" document published
    as ION'

There's no plan to move formal rules of process anywhere other than
BCP. BCPs explicitly require IETF consensus (and in the case of process
rules, ISOC Board acceptance to complete the legal liability chain).
IONs are approved on the fly.

Enough said,I think, for this distro.

     Brian

> I appreciate that this may result in its losing the "BCP" title,