Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] contributors section & tools

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Jul 2020 12:16:59 -0400

In article <[email-masked]> 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.

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 20:03:00 +0200

On 16.07.2020 18:16, John R Levine wrote:
> ...

Well, we could (a) publish the updated RFC7991bis draft, and (b) try to
get more people involved into revising it.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 20:21:54 +0200

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.

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
[email-masked]

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Jul 2020 14:26:19 -0400

> get more people involved into revising it.

Indeed.  I would like to bring it into agreement with the actual grammar 
before republishing.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Jul 2020 14:35:31 -0400

> 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

R's,
John

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 20:35:30 +0200

> Indeed.  I would like to bring it into agreement with the actual grammar

Well, I'd prefer align *both*, spec and implementation. If there's
something wrong in the grammar-as-implemented, it should be fixed, not
documented.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 20:44:36 +0200

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:35:31PM -0400, John R Levine wrote:
> 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

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 [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] 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