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

[Brian Campbell]

I'll admit to not knowing all the details here, but it seems like a fork is
something that should be avoided unless there's some really really
compelling need.


On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Tim Bray <tbray at textuality.com> wrote:

> Eek, please don’t do this.  Lots of people are fiddling with the IETF’s
> version, which is thus going to have all sorts of good tooling.  I’d try to
> stay aligned.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Michael Jones <issues-reply at bitbucket.org
> > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>
>
>
> --
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
> https://keybase.io/timbray)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20140811/6a508db1/attachment.html>