[Standards] long specs

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Feb 15 17:58:51 UTC 2012

Hash: SHA1

On 2/15/12 10:17 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I think that works fine. We just need to start putting those
interim versions in a source control branch so that they don't get
published accidentally.


- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre

Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


More information about the Standards mailing list