[Standards] long specs

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Wed Feb 15 17:17:05 UTC 2012


On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> On Wed Feb 15 17:00:18 2012, Matthew Wild wrote:
>>
>> On 15 February 2012 16:39, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
>> > On Wed Feb 15 16:38:27 2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > a) I'd like to be able to have "stable" and "working" copies of the
>> >> > same spec, particularly for major revisions like XEP-0045 is
>> >> > currently going through.
>> >>
>> >> I think this is a matter of best practices for how the spec authors
>> >> work, i.e., placing interim versions in a source control branch.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > There are informal methods for handling this, yes - I think we'd benefit
>> > from formal ones.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not overly keen on this. Could you describe a bit more what a
>> world where we implement this looks like? Multiple live versions of
>> the same spec seems... a step in the wrong direction.
>
>
> RFC 822 is an Internet Standard (STD 11)
>
> RFC 2822 was a Proposed Standard, which obsoleted RFC 822.
>
> RFC 5322 obsoletes 2822, and is a Draft Standard.
>
> So we're in the interesting position of having a "standard" which is
> obsoleted twice over. This is rather weird - and a bit sucky.
>
> In the XMPP world, this doesn't happen - we only have XEP-0045. But for
> lengthy revision processes, I think having actual published sub-versions
> would make more sense - that is, we have XEP-0045, but we also have (say)
> XEP-0045-1 which might be Experimental. It'd allow review cycles to be
> shorter, but also allow the "newer" spec to be seen at an easy to find
> location.
>
> For a similar example, look at the progression of draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-XX
> against RFC 3920. The drafts weren't stable (we considered them equivalent
> in principle to an Experimental XEP), up until RFC 6120 was published, when
> RFC 3920 effectively vanished. But it meant that in most cases, we could do
> incremental reviews.

But this works with what we have, doesn't it? Peter often posts RC
versions, which work with Tobias's fancy XEP-diff tool, and which we
can review in full, etc. etc.

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list