search

ietf-tools / xml2rfc

Generate RFCs and IETF drafts from document source in XML according to the IETF xml2rfc v2 and v3 vocabularies
https://ietf-tools.github.io/xml2rfc/
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
71 stars 39 forks source link

misleading warning about missing consensus attribute for drafts #420

Open ietf-svn-bot opened 5 years ago

ietf-svn-bot commented 5 years ago

type_enhancement | by julian.reschke@gmx.de

Warning: Setting consensus="true" for IETF STD document (this is not the schema default, but is the only value permitted for this type of document)

This is causing confusion, as the value is irrelevant when producing an internet draft.

Issue migrated from trac:420 at 2022-02-05 12:49:37 +0000

ietf-svn-bot commented 5 years ago

@julian.reschke@gmx.de changed priority from medium to trivial

ietf-svn-bot commented 5 years ago

@henrik@levkowetz.com changed status from new to closed

ietf-svn-bot commented 5 years ago

@henrik@levkowetz.com changed resolution from ` toinvalid`

ietf-svn-bot commented 5 years ago

@henrik@levkowetz.com commented

This is a direct consequence of the preptool phase and its RFC 7998 requirement to set attributes to their default values. Setting consensus to its default value would result in an invalid combination of category and consensus.

I can remove the warning, but I don't see that doing so would make things better.

ietf-svn-bot commented 5 years ago

@julian.reschke@gmx.de commented

Setting consensus to its default value would result in an invalid combination of category and consensus.

Why would it be invalid, in particular for the source of an Internet-Draft? (citation please)

ietf-svn-bot commented 5 years ago

@julian.reschke@gmx.de commented

FWIW, the consensus attribute did not have a default in rfc2629.dtd. Maybe the best fix would be to remove the default in v3 as well.

ietf-svn-bot commented 5 years ago

@jyasskin@chromium.org changed status from closed to reopened

ietf-svn-bot commented 5 years ago

@jyasskin@chromium.org changed resolution from invalid to ``

ietf-svn-bot commented 5 years ago

@jyasskin@chromium.org commented

I also can't find a statement that category="std" (or <seriesInfo status="standard">) must have consensus="true". It's also incorrect for nearly all internet-drafts to claim that they have IETF consensus.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc7991bis-01#section-2.44.2 does state that the default is "false".

ietf-svn-bot commented 4 years ago

@rjsparks@nostrum.com _changed status from reopened to under_review_

ietf-svn-bot commented 4 years ago

@rjsparks@nostrum.com commented

I agree with removing the default.

Jeffrey, I think the issue is an assumption about the semantics. What 7991 says is simply

2.45.2.  "consensus" Attribute

   Affects the generated boilerplate.  Note that the values of "no" and
   "yes" are deprecated and are replaced by "false" (the default) and
   "true".

It is a flag in the grammar to tell the software whether to use the consensus oriented boilerplate when the context to use it makes sense. That is, it really has no meaning at all for Internet-Drafts since they have their own boilerplate that speaks nothing of consensus.

This is similar to the confusion around the consensus flag in the datatracker. All that means is whether to use consensus boilerplate if the document is published as an RFC.

In 7991bis, perhaps we can add words talking about what the semantics of the values are to help avoid this confusion. I don't think we should change the attribute name at this point, but we wouldn't be having this conversation if it was named "use_consensus_boilerplate_once_consensus_is_reached", or if we flipped its meaning and named it "never_use_consensus_boilerplate".

ietf-svn-bot commented 4 years ago

@jyasskin@chromium.org commented

@rjsparks: Yep, documenting that semantics, or a semantics like "this document either has or intends to seek consensus among the relevant body." would resolve my issue. Thanks!

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@rjsparks@nostrum.com _changed status from under_review to assigned_

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@rjsparks@nostrum.com changed owner from henrik@levkowetz.com to ``

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@rjsparks@nostrum.com changed status from assigned to accepted

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@rjsparks@nostrum.com _changed status from accepted to under_review_

ietf-svn-bot commented 3 years ago

@mt@lowentropy.net commented

While considering this change, please remove the warning. It is impossible to construct a document that doesn't generate this warning. That makes the warning only contribute to noise.