[Openid-specs-ab] Issue #945: Migration spec currently requires a non-standard version of xml2rfc (openid/connect)

[Michael Jones]

New issue 945: Migration spec currently requires a non-standard version of xml2rfc
https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issue/945/migration-spec-currently-requires-a-non

Michael Jones:

There are several problems with this:

1.  COSTS OF USING A NON-STANDARD TOOL:  Forcing editors to use non-standard versions of tools is a non-starter.  Maintaining and installing those tools then becomes an unnecessary tax on the working group and the editors and means that special expertise would needed to build a spec, rather than just going to http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/old.html and using the standard version.  We should only move off of the standard tools without a compelling reason to do so (which there isn't, because the existing specs are an existence proof that they work fine).

2.  SHOULD REQUIRE WG DECISION:  Changing to use a non-standard tool chain should be a decision made by the working group since it potentially affects many working group members and the long-term maintainability of the spec - not a decision made by individual editors.

3.  FORMAT DIFFERENT THAN CURRENT SPECS:  Using the non-standard extension ipr="oidf", as presently implemented, produces drafts with a different format than the approved OpenID Connect specifications.  There's no compelling reason to format specs differently than we always have in the past.

4.  DIFFERENT TITLE FOR IPR NOTICES:  Our current specs use the title "Notices" for the board-required IPR statements.  The revised tool emits the title "Full Copyright Statement", which is unnecessarily different.

5.  ADDING NEW IPR CONTENT REQUIRES BOARD APPROVAL AND LEGAL REVIEW:  The revised tool emits a new section "Intellectual Property" that contains additional information about IPR.  I believe that a board decision is required before any additional IPR content is added to any specifications.  Legal review may also be required.