[rfc-i] Re: troff/nroff macros for RFCs and I-Ds
carl at media.org
Sun Jan 30 04:37:27 PST 2005
> 3. any specific tweaks to formatting...
It looked really good, but on the examples (what we call
<figure><artwork> using the older method), you seem to loose
your left margin. Was that intention?
> 1. Is there any reason not to pursue this as an Informational
> RFC via IETF channels? If not, what AD would something like
> this fall under? [I would prefer not to submit it as an
> "independent" submission to the RFC Editor outside of the
> IETF, as it would then contain an IESG Note disclaiming
> suitability for any purpose, which is likely to put off
> potential authors who might otherwise use it.]
This sounds like the general area. Independent submissions don't
necessarily have such severe caveats if the iesg feels it is
somewhat relevant. And, since developing more nroff/troff
macros sounds like pretty close to the core rfc-editor work,
an independent submission wouldn't necessarily be inappropriate.
(You could try and get a working group, but you'd probably have
to start with a "Future of CSTR54++ BOF".)
More information about the rfc-interest