Hello David, At 00:18 06/09/21, David Conrad wrote: >To clarify, the XML-ization of IANA registries is an _internal_ >effort, primarily aimed at allowing us to simplify/automate registry >creation and modification. We will take what efforts we can to >insure there is no significant change to the "legacy" registries. We >will _also_ publish the initial set of XML-ized registries (at >different URLs of course) and request comments. Assuming the initial >forays into XML-ization are deemed acceptable, we'll publish more. >If not (hey, it could happen), we'll not publish more (but we'll >still use the XML registries internally). Many thanks for this clarification, and also for helping with the discussions concerning the size of our new registry and possible consequences of this size. The main reason that you got contacted was that to some extent, we were considering to move from what could be called a 'home-brewn' format to something XML-based. One argument for it was that there was a rumor that IANA would be moving to XML, which you now have confirmed. Given that above, you describe the purpose of XML as mainly internal, I'm wondering whether, in your/IANAs view, an XML format defined by a WG would be: a) desirable (e.g. less work for IANA; helpful external input,...) b) irrelevant (the WG can do what they want, we'll do what we need,...) c) harmful (we'll have to re-do it anyway; it would confuse people,...) Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.