Subject: [xml2rfc] #362 (Version_3_cli_txt): Cateogory is deprecated by still needed?

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 08:40:24 -0000

#362: Cateogory is deprecated by still needed?

 I'm a little confused on whether category is needed. RFC 7991 deprecates
 it, but xml2rfc --v3 still looks for it.

 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7991#section-2.45.1 is also confusing on
 what exactly needs to be specified. It says use <name> which allows:

    The name of the series.  The currently known values are "RFC",
    "Internet-Draft", and "DOI".  The RFC Series Editor may change this
    list in the future.

 While category has 'std', 'exp' etc. ?

-- 
-------------------------------+-------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]       |      Owner:
     Type:  defect             |     Status:  new
 Priority:  medium             |  Milestone:
Component:  Version_3_cli_txt  |    Version:  2.4.x
 Keywords:                     |
-------------------------------+-------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/362>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 12:37:58 +0200

Hi Miek,

Given the level of scrutiny (thank you!) that you're giving the --text --v3
formatter, you should probably also read the summary of issues I found with
the new schema while implementing the v2v3 converter, preptool, and v3 text
formatter:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-00

Once I'm back from vacation (next week) I expect to start putting the issues
in the draft individually into the schema document issue trackers on github.

The category issue you describe below is mentioned in Section 3.1.7 in the
draft above.  I hope to have a revised schema spec updated accordingly.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 22:48:50 +0100

[ Quoting <[email-masked]> in "Re: [xml2rfc] #362 (Version_3_cli_t..." ]
>draft above.  I hope to have a revised schema spec updated accordingly.

*Please* bring back paginated output for the text format. Where does the 
discusion on this draft take place?

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 15:12:51 -0700

On 26 Aug 2018, at 14:48, Miek Gieben wrote:

> *Please* bring back paginated output for the text format. Where does 
> the discusion on this draft take place?

The draft itself is not being discussed. Soon, Henrik will take each 
issue from the draft and put it as a separate issue in the GitHub repos, 
and we can discuss them there. On any issue that seems "contentious", 
we'll probably bring that to the rfc-interest@ mailing list.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 08:03:03 -0700

On 8/26/18 3:12 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> issue from the draft and put it as a separate issue in the GitHub 
> repos, and we can discuss them there. On any issue that seems 
> "contentious", we'll probably bring that to the rfc-interest@ mailing 
> list.

Hi,

Actually, we're going to record the issues in github, but I expect 
discussions on xml2rfc-dev@.  I'll send out a reminder on rfc-interest 
to that effect when the discussions kick off.

-Heather