I agree that 1.5 makes it clear the RPC has control over changes. Does 1.3.1 asbout community input apply? Yes, and if so should 1.5 (and the text it summarizes) all point to 4.3?
I think Section 1.3.1 should have a pointer to 1.5 and that while 9280 used “tooling” the draft changes the title for Sec 1.3.1 to “Tooling and code” I still think it should explicitly include “format definitions” or some such to the title. From: Alexis Rossi <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 4:00 PM To: Salz, Rich <[email protected]> Cc: Paul Hoffman <[email protected]>, RSWG <[email protected]> Subject: [Rswg] Re: [Ext] Getting progress on RFCXML grammar bugs On this topic of the XML vocab, I do want to call attention to section 1. 5 of the 9280 update draft [1] regarding the purview of the RSWG and RSAB. The new text clarifies that "detailed technical specifications, for example specific details ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd On this topic of the XML vocab, I do want to call attention to section 1.5 of the 9280 update draft [1] regarding the purview of the RSWG and RSAB. The new text clarifies that "detailed technical specifications, for example specific details of text or graphical formats or XML grammar" are the responsibility of RPC (not RSWG). So if we end up approving this draft, I would expect that there will be a new path for making XML progress. [1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates-02.html#name-purview-of-the-rswg-and-rsa<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-editorial-rswg-rfc9280-updates-02.html*name-purview-of-the-rswg-and-rsa__;Iw!!GjvTz_vk!W7kWFTJPdHI_Q8r6mPUvJxsGuB70rZDHkuqgfWw0JeTqt0HaPEnaFODPhwWR2r71ors-PCUNWcAdVc-9UZ2KB1I$> On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 10:14 AM Salz, Rich <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The draft obsoletes 9280 but doesn’t change the version? That seems a likely source of confusion. For example, the second paragraph says things have changed based on what we learned, but it’s still 3? It says it “updates 9280” and then next sentence says it obsoletes it. Perhaps that ship has sailed, and I alone am left in the rough. :) In Sec 1, you must change “Whereas” to “While” I read Section 1.3.1 carefully a couple of times. Perhaps I am being thrown by use of the phrase “tooling and code” and would want to see “Data definitions” (to cover the XML vocabulary). I *think* that changing that is covered by the “expected to solicit input” (second to last) paragraph in that section. I would rather see that called out explicitly. +1 to Mirja’s “remove the IAB members” section. Also just remove the Acknowledgement section. Both of those were about 9280, not this document. -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
