Subject: [xml2rfc] Problems with tools pointing to BCP14/

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 21:49:18 -0400

Carsten pointed out that my BCP14 boilerplate in my xml was old. And I 
see it was.  So I went to look up BCP14:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14

And it points to RFC 2119.  Shouldn't that now resolve to 8174?

Who maintains the bcp listing?

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 00:44:25 -0400

Bob,

That URL actually points to both RFCs. It says at the top "[Note that this
file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]", and indeed if you scroll
down, you'll see them both. Perhaps not the most user-friendly way to do
it, but they are both there.

BTW, the current BCP14 text is:

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:49 PM Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc
>

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 12:12:10 -0400

On 8/2/19 12:44 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Bob,
>
> That URL actually points to both RFCs. It says at the top "[Note that 
> this file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]", and indeed if 
> you scroll down, you'll see them both. Perhaps not the most 
> user-friendly way to do it, but they are both there.

Dah.  I still think the RFCs should be in reverse order in the BCP.

>    14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all

Got that now.

thanks

>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:49 PM Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:23:50 +0200

> Dah.  I still think the RFCs should be in reverse order in the BCP.

Don’t know about that, but a TOC in the head box with links to the pieces would be great.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:31:09 +0200

> Don’t know about that, but a TOC in the head box with links to the pieces would be great.

...an we should have a plan how this will work with the v3 HTML output
(there are problems to solve, such as overall doc structure and anchor
handling).

Best regards, Julian