[rfc-i] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-rfc-author-guide-00.txt
braden at ISI.EDU
Tue Sep 7 16:28:52 PDT 2004
*> Thanks for clarifying my doubts! I believe the approach you are
*> documenting is fundamentally wrong in IETF context. IMHO, RFC Editor
*> SHOULD NOT accept drafts that require modifications. Nor should IESG
*> review such drafts, for that matter. It should be authors
*> responsibility to comply with all the rules, without spending precious
*> IETF resources. And RFC Editor and IESG should be prohibited from
*> wasting time on fixing drafts to comply with the rules.
Note that the RFC Editor *edits* documents. It would be good if all
members of IETF were required to take a course in English technical
writing before attempting an I-D, but even then I expect we would see a
great range of document qualities.
*> > My vision of "good practice", which I hope comes through in the
*> > draft, is that ID authors must do all that is required, and should
*> > do (or at least consider) all that is suggested.
*> IMO, if there is energy to re-document drafting requirements, we
*> should spend it to make sure that virtually no authors produce drafts
*> that require RFC Editor changes. Doing so requires different
*> documentation, new tools, and different RFC Editor/IESG policies, all
*> of which is something we (collectively) can produce, influence, and
*> Specifically, if RFC Editor wants to always enforce a rule, we must
*> document it and produce tools to check compliance. Drafts clearly
Note that the RFC Editor does have a set of (simple) internally
developed tools that we use for clerical tasks like checking for
missing blanks after periods or checking for consistency of
references and citations. There are other tools that would be
useful, of course. How about a tool that will catch misuse of
"it's" vs. "its", or identify run-on sentences, or bad punctuation,
or lack of parallelism in complex sentences?
Of course, we could all convert to using Word.
More information about the rfc-interest