Re: A guide to the IETF's process documents

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
 
>> Probably IONs derived from I-Ds should have an URL
>> to the generic tools server URL for the last I-D.
 
> That would be an xml2rfc issue in this case.

I'm not sure what you mean, apparently xml2rfc will use
additional URLs on the tools server in the future, see   
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.text.xml.rfc/1335>

What I meant is that IONs derived from an I-D like the
procdoc ION, the execd ION, or the AD-sponsoring ION
*_SHOULD_* have a reference to their last I-D version
(of course informative where that difference is used).

This not yet existing SHOULD could be added to 4693bis
in October.  E.g. the execd ION has already a pointer
to its predecessor in chapter 4, but not yet as link.

The AD-sponsoring ION has apparently no link or pointer
at all to its predecessor (Jari's I-D).  Ditto your
procdocs ION.  If readers don't know that there was an
I-D before the ION (with a "similar" name in the three
examples) they probably miss that part of the history.

BTW, it's perfectly legal in xml2rfc to use a link...

 <eref target=
  "http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lynch-execd-tasks";
 />

...almost anywhere.  Untested, that should also work:

 <eref target=
  "http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lynch-execd-tasks";
 > [I-D.lynch-execd-tasks] </eref>
 
Only a minor nit, it's no secret that I want the ION
experiment to be identified as successful in October.

Frank



_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg