RE: draft-ietf-impp-cpim-03

> - I think the purpose of the DTDs (sections 6, 7, 8 and 9) in 
> the draft is a
> little obscure, and that they could use some more 
> motivation/explanation if
> they are to remain. Should some or all of these be provided 
> elsewhere (in
> MSGFMT or PIDF)? Process-wise, I also seem to recall hearing 
> that placing
> DTDs in RFCs was now discouraged...

Jon, this might be the source of your DTD-discouraging recollection:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-ietf-xml-guidelines-05.
txt

(sorry if the URL gets line-wrapped)

Section 4.7 in particular.  It might be more accurate to say that DTD use is
being discouraged if there are rigorous validity or extensibility
requirements to be met, but ultimately the choice of a specification format
is something that should be considered carefully by a protocol designer.

-Scott-



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]