RPC Wiki - design

20130814-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-12-20T00:44:41+00:00

1. Administrivia * SVN access ok? * RSE wiki access ok? * call schedule acceptable? (that means 6 calls between now and Vancouver) 2. Expected outputs of group * examples of Publication outputs (they may be done manually and are designed to show what things will look like)

20130925-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-12-20T00:36:19+00:00

Attendees: Adam Alice Dave Joe Julian Nevil Paul Robert Tony 2. Do we have sufficient requirements for: Turning this in to requirements, we might be very close on that at least; for example, on SVG, we aren't close on knowing the profiles, but the set of requirements that says

20131009-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-06-17T21:10:21+00:00

Next call scheduled for 23 October 2013 0. Agenda bash 1. Administrivia a. BoF = Thursday, 7 November @ 17:30-18:30 PST Plans for BoF include: Reviewing the requirements; showing the mock-ups, opening the floor to comments and questions b. Daylight Savings Time ends in the U.S. on November 3

20131023-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-12-20T00:40:58+00:00

Expected:Alice, Adam, Joe, Tony, Ted, Robert, Nevil, Paul Apologies:Julian, Dave 0. Agenda bash 1. Administrivia a. BoF agenda b. Continuation of the Design Team after Vancouver? 2. Tooling and Requirements a. see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/wiki/doku.php?id=design:producing-output&#proposed_future_production b. status of 2629-bis c. status of HTML requirements d. short summary-to-date of i18n program discussion on non-ASCII characters

20131127-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-12-20T00:35:46+00:00

Julian - ok Joe Ted - ok Tony Paul - ok Alice - ok Adam - no Dave - ok Nevil - ok Robert - ok 0. Agenda bash 1. Status on drafts * draft-hildebrand-html-rfc * draft-reschke-xml2rfc-latest Looks like there is quite a bit of discussion at this point between Julian, Paul, and Tony on the xml2rfc mailing list. Is mediation required? * Julian reasonably happy with structure of doc, except for the open question on fragments in main section; no one seems to like them so probably will remove…

20131211-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-12-20T00:38:55+00:00

Adam Roach Alice Russo Julian Reschke Paul Hoffman Robert Sparks Tony Hansen Nevil Brownlee Dave Thaler 0. Agenda bash Some input re: Accessibility requirements timelines 1. Administrivia * 2014 meeting schedule (alt weeks to IESG formal tele chat?); since I'm hoping to see this wrap up before IETF 89, would weekly calls be helpful to work through remaining issues and questions? In particular, winter holidays are going to take a bite out of people's availability. For folks holding pens …

20131218-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-12-20T00:32:56+00:00

(No formal agenda) 1. Talk about xml doc, particular seeing if we can get some help creating test cases to help answer documentation questions reference work and lists (lists are very complex); just copying the definition from old spec is sufficient; Julian to send what test cases are needed to the list; send test cases to Julian - text that can be pasted in to a document in an xml2rfc document in the repo, there are examples in the test doc - maybe we should set up a sample document in the rep…

20140115-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-01-15T21:06:09+00:00

Attending: Adam Alice Dave Joe Julian Nevil Paul Robert Ted Tony 1. Status of draft-reschke-xml2rfc-latest Julian is focused on httpbis right now; hope to have that done in the next week and then will focus more on this draft. The remaining text must have someones(s) research what really happens in order to describe it in the text. Can look at the old

20140129-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-02-06T16:02:29+00:00

Attending: Heather, Paul, Julian, Alice, Tony, Nevil, Adam (drop off a few minutes early), Robert, Dave Apologies: Ted,Joe 1. v3 vocabulary update * encourage backward compatibility or no? * any specific questions from Paul or requests for focus on certain areas?

20140212-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-02-12T21:21:10+00:00

Attendees: * Adam - n/a * Alice - ok * Dave - n/a * Joe - ok * Julian - ok * Nevil - ok * Paul - ok * Robert - ok * Ted - ok * Tony - ok Agenda 1. The latest on the v2 and v3 vocabulary drafts Julian - the spec has the vocabulary description and a few additional sections, one of which is the one about the use of certain unicode characters to enforce certain things like non-breaking space. Vocabulary wise, almost done, with just a few attributes left to describe. Will su…

20140326-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-03-26T21:29:19+00:00

Attendees: Alice, Dave, Heather, Joe, Julian, Nevil, Paul, Tony Apologies: Robert, Adam, Ted 1. Status of drafts a. SVG profile No changes made. Been working on diagonal lines, but that broke everything so had to do a lot more work. Hope for a new rev in the next 1-2 weeks. The important things are the diagrams, but will check the words as well to see if the idea for a filter might work.

20140402-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-04-02T20:19:10+00:00

20140416-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-04-16T21:20:43+00:00

Attendees: Alice, Joe, Julian, Nevil, Paul, Robert, Tony Not available: Adam, Ted, Dave 0. Administrivia * Document stream for RFC Format docs = IAB 1. SVG draft -03 * “we'll need a way for authors to pull an svg file into their xml draft.

20140515-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-06-12T22:35:56+00:00

Attendees: Heather, Paul, Tony, Dave, Robert, Alice, Joe, Nevil, Julian 0. Administrivia * Next call scheduled for May 29; HLF unavailable but let her know if you want to use the webex for specific discussions 1. Status of existing drafts * xml2rfc v2 - any further work left, or should we nudge it towards publication?

20140612-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-06-17T21:21:31+00:00

Attendees: Julian, Nevil, Paul, Joe, Tony, Alice, Robert Absent: Adam, Dave, Teda. Agenda bash0. Administrivia * Next call scheduled for 26 June 1. Status of existing drafts * xml2rfc v2 A new draft has been submitted; made a fix re: lists style inheritance; very close to having something will be ready to review. Can ask for an early GenART review now.

20140626-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-06-26T19:57:12+00:00

RFC Format Design Team call, 26 June 2014 Attendees: Paul, Joe, Heather, Alice, Nevil, Julian, Tony, Robert Absent: Adam, Ted, Dave 0. Administrivia * Next call scheduled for 10 July 2014; that is the last call we have on the calendar Heather to send out a poll after the next agenda update so that the design team can meet. Joe is tentative for July 10

20140806-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-08-19T15:56:01+00:00

Probable regrets: Julian Attendees: Heather, Joe, Robert, Nevil, Paul, Tony Agenda 0. Administrivia * retrying doodle poll 1. Doc status/review * XML v2 no update; fairly stable in the repo; Julian is intending to pull out any examples in there, and point to the to-be-drafted examples draft

20140819-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-08-19T23:10:01+00:00

Attendees: Alice, Sandy, Tony, Paul, Nevil, Heather, Robert, Joe, Julian 0. Agenda bash 1. Draft status and expected timeline for “done enough to kick off the SoWs” * v2 draft no update * v3 draft Paul: want people to think about the question of tables; we should have real tables, possibly using the

20140916-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-10-02T12:49:37+00:00

Expected attendees: Paul, Robert, Heather, Sandy, Joe, Tony, Nevil Apologies: Julian 0. Agenda bash 1. Administrivia a. Project timeline What does this team have the appetite to finish? Is it possible to have the various drafts that have been already been started in a mostly-finished state by IETF 91? Because we’ll need to have things done enough to get the SoWs out for community comment (4 weeks, minimum), then create RFPs (another 4 weeks, minimum), etc.

20140930-notes

Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-10-02T12:47:36+00:00

Attending: Heather, Sandy, Tony, Paul, Nevil, Julian Apologies: Robert, Adam, Dave, Ted, Joe 0. Agenda bash 1. XML v3 draft * inline text as



“Unless he was asking for a new feature in the XML format, namely marking up an inline span of text as



20141014-notes
Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-12-17T15:54:55+00:00
Attending:
Heather, Sandy, Nevil, Tony, Robert, Julian, Joe, Paul

0. Agenda bash

1. Report out from meeting with IAB & IETF chairs (Heather)

A variety of topics covered, from how the transition will work, how the tools development process should iterate, what should be published when XML is not provided by authors.  There are some important open questions re: the PDF format, posted directly to Tony, that will impact exactly what we do with publishing the PDF, but the transition plan proposed …


20141028-notes
Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-12-17T15:57:09+00:00
Attendees:
Tony, Sandy, Joe, Paul, Heather, Robert, Julian

0. Agenda bash

1. The plain-text submission scenario and canonical format

“If the output is good, by definition the XML is good.  If the output is
not good, then either the XML _or_ the tool is not good.  Therefore, it
doesn't matter who creates the XML, it can remain canonical as long as
the author indicates the output created from the XML is as intended.”


20141112-notes
Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-12-17T15:59:08+00:00
*  Feedback from IESG/IAB 
		*  diff tools
			*  rendered date
			*  support for being guinea pigs



Brute force/build examples for the IESG to help them see the XML transformation isn’t as scary

	*  Hot topics from rfc-interest
		*  reference group


20141202-notes
Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-12-02T22:03:24+00:00
Attendees:
Joe, Julian, Nevil, Paul, Heather, Robert, Tony, Sandy

0. Agenda bash

1. deprecated/obsoleted discussion
(From Heather’s email to rfc-design)
We could say that we will continue with the deprecated/obsoleted path
for vocabulary items out of v2 (since it has never been canonical) but
continue support for the v3 vocabulary in perpetuity, regardless of
future changes and enhancements to the vocabulary. I'm not thrilled
with that, but I think it could be a reasonable compromise. Thoughts…


20141216-notes
Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-12-17T16:01:58+00:00
Attendees: Heather, Tony, Paul, Julian, Nevil, Alice, Robert

Apologies: Joe, Sandy (handing back off to Alice)

0. Agenda bash

1. XML vocabulary and page layout

- is the vocabulary really the place to solve for page layout issues?
Reviewed the DocBook XML schema (


20150106-notes
Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2015-01-06T22:13:17+00:00
Attending:
Heather, Nevil, Julian, Paul, Joe, Alice, Tony

0. Agenda bash

1. Draft review

	*  framework draft: OK to publish?

Paul has looked at it; expect is to be a lightening rod in the community.

Julian hasn’t had a chance to review; will do soon.


20150120-notes
Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2015-02-03T22:08:41+00:00
Attending:

Julian, Nevil, Paul, Alice, Tony, Heather

0. Agenda bash

1. Draft review
- xml2rfc v2 draft - testing the *refs; Julian hasn’t had a chance to work on those; hopes to get to this before the end of January

- xml2rfc v3

Paul: had a a few changes today thanks to some input from Miek Gieben through rfc-interest.


20150203-notes
Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2015-02-03T22:08:13+00:00
Attendees:
Alice, Joe, Paul, Tony, Julian, Nevil, Heather, Robert

0. Agenda bash

1. Format SoWs out for community comment

	*  FYI, they’re out there.  No comments returned yet.

Paul: some people are looking at them because Paul is getting strange questions.


20150414-notes
Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2015-04-28T21:05:16+00:00
Attendees: Alice, Julian, Nevil, Paul, Robert, Tony, Heather, Joe

0. Agenda bash

1. Draft review

	*  xml2rfc v2 (*ref review complete?)

Julian: No progress made yet. Will work on this this weekend.
Note: this is holding up Paul a bit as he needs to make changes and discussion on v3


20150428-notes
Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2015-05-12T23:06:44+00:00
Attendees:
Joe, Paul, Tony, Robert, Julian, Heather, Nevil, Alice

Notes:

0. Agenda bash

1. Draft review

	*  xml2rfc v2 (*ref review status)

Julian: need to finish discussion the finalizer discussions since that will impact the *ref stuff; sent an example earlier today and needs the team to think about it and offer feedback; there is a balance in minimizing the output in


20150602-notes
Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2015-06-02T21:15:56+00:00
Attendees:
Heather, Joe, Robert, Julian, Paul, Nevil, Alice, Tony

0. Agenda bash

1. HTML -  vs <h1>

Team agrees that <title> and something else is needed. Whether that is <h1> or <head> or something else in the body is the question? People will be ok with <title> in the <head> plus <h1>, following the way they do this in the
</article>
<article>
<h1>20150706-notes</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2015-07-06T23:27:29+00:00</p>
Attendees:
Heather, Paul, Robert, Joe, Tony

0. Agenda bash

2. CSS draft <<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-flanagan-rfc-css/>>

Paul: concerned that we might be talking about two different CSS files; if there only drafts and RFCs, then there are things that may be formatted differently depending on what type you’re looking at. There should be one
</article>
<article>
<h1>anchor-requirements</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-10-17T13:39:49+00:00</p>
Anchor Stability

The sections in the non-canonical HTML document need to be able to be addressed by a fragment identifier. The same identifiers need to appear in the same places in the XML. These fragment identifiers should follow a predictable format so that someone referencing a section in an
</article>
<article>
<h1>call-notes</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2015-07-06T23:26:38+00:00</p>
Rough, uncensored, scribbled notes from the RFC Format Design Team calls

(Because the team asked for them -- Heather)

06 July 2015

02 June 2015

28 April 2015

14 April 2015

03 February 2015

20 January 2015

06 January 2015

16 December 2014

02 December 2014

12 November 2014

28 October 2014

14 October 2014

30 September 2014

16 September 2014

19 August 2014

06 August 2014

26 June 2014

12 June 2014

 15 May 2014

16 April 2014

02 April 2014

26 March 2014

12 February 2014

29 Janu…
</article>
<article>
<h1>design-team</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-12-20T00:29:19+00:00</p>
Members of the RFC Format Design Team

Nevil Brownlee (ISE), Heather Flanagan (RSE), Tony Hansen, Joe Hildebrand, Paul Hoffman, Julian Reschke, Adam Roach, Alice Russo, Robert Sparks (Tools Team liaison), Dave Thaler

Expected Outputs of the Design Team
</article>
<article>
<h1>epub-requirements</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-10-28T15:53:44+00:00</p>
See Requirements for HTML Output

The EPUB format must be compliant with EPUB 3
</article>
<article>
<h1>existing-xml</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-10-17T18:20:58+00:00</p>
It seems that lately we've been wasting a lot of time because some people (that would be me) assume everybody is familiar with the current vocabulary and the tools around it, while others ... don't.

The result is that sometimes it's hard to understand what the other party is trying to say, because many things look entirely different if you've been doing them for so long.
</article>
<article>
<h1>finalizer</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2015-05-22T22:07:35+00:00</p>
THIS PAGE IS NO LONGER IN USE AND IS OUT-OF-DATE.

PLEASE SEE draft-hoffman-rfcv3-preptool INSTEAD

v3 prep tool usage scenarios

The prep tool will have (at least) two settings:

	*  Internet-Draft preparation
	*  Canonical RFC preparation

There are only a few difference between these two settings. For example, the boilerplate output will be different, as will the date output on the front page.
</article>
<article>
<h1>format-and-content-rfcs</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-10-25T21:58:24+00:00</p>
The v3 vocabulary will be used as part of the new RFC series format described in RFC 6949.
See draft-hoffman-xml2rfc for more information
about the v3 vocabulary.

RFCs
will have multiple representations: the canonical document will be in XML using the v3 format, and
many non- canonical representations (such as
</article>
<article>
<h1>format-errata</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-09-25T18:15:38+00:00</p>
Readers will report errata against whatever Publication format they are viewing.  The errata process will need to be modified to handle the potential conflicts between formats.

	*  Should the errata system be modified to include a field to record what document format the reader is reporting against?
</article>
<article>
<h1>format-implementation</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2019-08-21T14:26:30+00:00</p>
Implementing the Format Changes
 Action  Info  Responsible Party  Target Completion Date  Style Guide Updates  Developing guidance for the editors on how to check UTF-8; Developing guidance for the editors on superscript, subscript, etc.; When to use reference groups
</article>
<article>
<h1>formats</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-10-16T02:07:34+00:00</p>
Thoughts on Non-Canonical Formats

This page is for keeping thoughts about the expected output formats *other than* XML.

The formats discussed so far are:

	*  Well-structured HTML
	*  Text (Unpaginated text and Paginated text)
	*  PDF
	*  EPUB

Well-structured HTML
</article>
<article>
<h1>front-back-matter</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-09-05T15:52:39+00:00</p>
Proposed Content for Front and Back Matter

The RFC format has important information for referencing the RFC in the frontmatter and backmatter.

That information is:

	*  RFC number
	*  RFC stream name
	*  Month and year of publication
	*  Document title
</article>
<article>
<h1>html-notes</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-10-09T21:04:51+00:00</p>
Notes about Existing HTML

Considering look & feel, some (fairly subjective) notes are below.

For comparison, various HTML pages:

	*  [A] Julian's latest: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-xml2rfc-latest.html>
	*  [B] Joe's: <http://cursive.net/draft-hildebrand-html-rfc-2012-07-29.html>
	*  [C] Tools: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5234>
	*  [D] Datatracker: <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5234/>
	*  [E] xml2rfc v1: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/test/test_v1.html> (*)
	*  [F] x…
</article>
<article>
<h1>html-requirements</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-09-17T14:28:02+00:00</p>
Requirements for HTML Output

The HTML has to render correctly on the following:

	*  the latest released versions of Chrome, Firefox, and IE running on Windows 8 in November 2013
	*  the latest released versions of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari running on Mac
</article>
<article>
<h1>image-requirements</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-11-05T18:37:11+00:00</p>
Note: Artwork, including ASCII to SVG conversions, is the responsibility of the Authors.  The RFC Editor will not create artwork.

Requirements for Images

Pre-formatted text must be no more than 80 characters wide and should use an artwork tag with an attribute (to be defined later) to differentiate the different types of pre-formatted text..
</article>
<article>
<h1>old-xml-tags</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-03-17T15:55:29+00:00</p>
This page is a backup of the xml-tags page from 2014-03-17. It was created when I removed the text from the previous page. If you have questions, please contact me at <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>.

The following are proposed changes to the xml2rfc v2 vocabulary to make v3 of the vocabulary. The new vocabulary will be used for the canonical versions of RFCs. Discussion of these proposed changes are happening on
</article>
<article>
<h1>pdf-requirements</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-10-14T15:42:38+00:00</p>
The PDF output will include the exact text of the RFC TXT format, with diagrams added.

* This requirement continues the current behavior.
</article>
<article>
<h1>pdf</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-12-30T20:38:58+00:00</p>
Recognizing that we will eventually re-create the Publication Formats as technology changes, we still want to respect the archival aspect of the Series and minimize reformatting where possible.  This suggests that each publication format should be designed to minimize the need for future re-formatting (let's set this for 5 year intervals).
</article>
<article>
<h1>producing-output</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-10-30T16:34:28+00:00</p>

</article>
<article>
<h1>start</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2019-05-07T16:31:19+00:00</p>

</article>
<article>
<h1>svg</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-09-05T22:43:33+00:00</p>
Thoughts on SVG
A quick thought. People are (I think rightly) concerned that some authors will
use SVG tools that put out more tags that what we want. We could spec out a
tool that takes SVG in and spits out a stripped down version, and make it
available to draft writers. The author could then see if the stripped down
version still looks like what they want.
</article>
<article>
<h1>text-requirements</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-10-16T02:52:44+00:00</p>

</article>
<article>
<h1>text-sample</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-08-23T17:49:34+00:00</p>
Sample of an [unpaginated text RFC]

New features include:

	*  An RFC Editor note indicating that the document contains information that do not render in ASCII
		*  If there is no additional information/artwork, then it seems there should be a PI or attribute in the XML file to make the note appear or not appear.
</article>
<article>
<h1>tool</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-08-17T18:49:19+00:00</p>
Ideas for the RFC tool

(Placeholder: a tool for parsing HTML5: <https://github.com/google/gumbo-parser>)
</article>
<article>
<h1>utf-8</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2019-10-07T19:10:33+00:00</p>
If RFCs-to-be come in with internationalized characters (e.g., in name, postal address, example), the expectatin is to ask the i18n directorate for review assistance. If that is not possible, either because the review team has closed and/or is unable to complete a review, the first step will be to reach out to the Apps ADs for assistance, and if they have no guidance or is unresponsive, send a request for assistance to the rfc-interest mailing list.
</article>
<article>
<h1>utf8-requirements</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2013-11-07T02:40:26+00:00</p>

</article>
<article>
<h1>xml-tags</h1>
<p>Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) — 2014-03-17T15:57:37+00:00</p>
This page, which mostly was used to mark closed issues, is no longer active. If you have questions, please contact me at <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>.
</article>
</main></body></html>