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

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Mon Aug 11 23:04:40 UTC 2014


Responses Inline:


2014-08-12 6:16 GMT+09:00 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).
>

The decision to stay with an old version necessarily mean that we will
incur the cost anyways.


>
> 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.
>

Actually, it SHOULD REQUIRE BOARD DECISION to let the WG continue to
use ipr="trust200902"in
the master copy.
I do not think it is permissible at all.
OpenID IPR is so fundamental in OIDF's work


>
> 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.
>

This is not correct. The different formatting is caused by not using <?ipr
private="">.
The formatting resulted by not using <?ipr private=""> is the format used
by IETF.


>
> 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
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20140812/d6036ab8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list