<div dir="ltr">Responses Inline: <div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-08-12 6:16 GMT+09:00 Michael Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:issues-reply@bitbucket.org" target="_blank">issues-reply@bitbucket.org</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">New issue 945: Migration spec currently requires a non-standard version of xml2rfc<br>
<a href="https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issue/945/migration-spec-currently-requires-a-non" target="_blank">https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issue/945/migration-spec-currently-requires-a-non</a><br>
<br>
Michael Jones:<br>
<div class=""><br>
There are several problems with this:<br>
<br>
</div>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 <a href="http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/old.html" target="_blank">http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/old.html</a> 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).<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The decision to stay with an old version necessarily mean that we will incur the cost anyways. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Actually, it SHOULD REQUIRE BOARD DECISION to let the WG continue to use <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Bitstream Vera Sans Mono','DejaVu Sans Mono',Monaco,Courier,monospace;font-size:12px;line-height:1.4000000000000001">ipr="trust200902"in the master copy. </span></div>
<div>I do not think it is permissible at all. </div><div>OpenID IPR is so fundamental in OIDF's work </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is not correct. The different formatting is caused by not using <?ipr private="">. </div><div>The formatting resulted by not using <?ipr private=""> is the format used by IETF. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Openid-specs-ab mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab" target="_blank">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Nat Sakimura (=nat)<div>Chairman, OpenID Foundation<br><a href="http://nat.sakimura.org/" target="_blank">http://nat.sakimura.org/</a><br>@_nat_en</div>
</div></div>