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

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Mon Aug 11 21:27:39 UTC 2014

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>

> 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.
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20140811/d74012bf/attachment.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list