Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [apps-discuss] process and editing questions: RFC errata

Expand Messages
  • Erik Wilde
    hello tom. ... thanks for noting, https://raw.github.com/dret/I-D/master/xml-patch/draft-wilde-xml-patch-05.txt should look better (not yet submitted). ... the
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      hello tom.

      On 2013-02-21 17:40 , t.petch wrote:
      > In passing, some lines of formal definition exceed the permitted length
      > for an RFC line so a little reorganising will be needed, probably best
      > sooner rather than later as they will need validating before the I-D can
      > advance and reorganising can introduce syntax errors.

      thanks for noting,
      https://raw.github.com/dret/I-D/master/xml-patch/draft-wilde-xml-patch-05.txt
      should look better (not yet submitted).

      > I may have missed the errata but I cannot recall a reference to them on
      > the apps-discuss list. If they are modified and then approved, which
      > usually happens, then your I-D should follow suit so the sooner they are
      > processed the better. Which might mean you requesting the AD to set the
      > wheels in motion, explaining why timeliness matters.

      the errata are still just in the "reported" state,
      http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5261 lists the 4 i have
      submitted. 3 of those now are actually part of the updates to RFC 5261
      in the draft, so i am wondering whether these errata are needed anymore?
      ideally, my draft would update RFC 5261, and then the errata would be
      redundant, right?

      > And, out of curiosity, do you expect people to use XPath 1.0 or 2.0? I
      > ask because in Netconf, I was keen to specify 2.0 and not 1.0, the
      > handling of namespaces in 2.0 seemed superior, but was told we could not
      > because there were no implementations for people to use, that 2.0 was a
      > great idea that had not happened (mmm IPv6?). The Normative reference
      > for Yang remains the 1999 version.

      2.0 is a vast improvement over 1.0, but it also is much more complex to
      implement. when 1.0 was released, XML was all the rage and there were a
      lot of people implementing specs. when 2.0 was released, the XML hyper
      curve already trended downward, plus it's just harder to implement. as a
      result it's true that it's surprisingly hard to find implementations of
      2.0. so while personally, i always use 2.0 because you can write better
      code, it's true that in specs, if you can get away with 1.0, it may be a
      good idea to stick to it.

      cheers,

      dret.

      --
      erik wilde | mailto:dret@... - tel:+1-510-2061079 |
      | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
      | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.