[Openid-specs-ab] Issue #945: Migration spec currently requires a non-standard version of xml2rfc (openid/connect)
issues-reply at bitbucket.org
Mon Aug 11 21:16:37 UTC 2014
New issue 945: Migration spec currently requires a non-standard version of xml2rfc
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.
More information about the Openid-specs-ab