[rfc-i] RFC Style guide
Glenn at RiverOnce.com
Wed Jan 19 12:06:08 PST 2011
revising, reorganizing, and updating the Style Guide (along with the Procedures
Manual) is called out as a priority in the TRSE (transitional RFC Series Editor)
recommendations. I also call out that 1) I'd like to see greater participation by
the community in creating the style guide and 2) it may be useful to have two
parts to the style guide: a) consisting of a small set of 'musts' that are enforced
by the Editorial (RPC) staff, and b) a large set of guidelines, examples, and
recommendations. The former will be very slow in changing and intentionally
small; the latter will probably change with greater frequency and have more
active community participation in its creation than would (a).
Publishing the Style Guide as an RFC is an excellent idea. I'd like to see a
discussion about that here, starting with:
- why should the Style Guide be an RFC?
- are there any reasons why the Style Guide should not be?
Note: this may play into a broader discussion of other important
'documents' in the great IETF that are not presently RFCs.
regards - and thanks for bringing this up,
PS: I expanded the recipients above to include the RFC-interest list. -GK
On Jan 19, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> What say you? :)
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: RFC Style guide
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:42:16 -0700
> From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im>
> To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks at nostrum.com>
> CC: wgchairs at ietf.org Chairs <wgchairs at ietf.org>
> On 1/19/11 12:21 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> I had occasion to read through the RFC Style guide at
>> (linked from <http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html>)
>> and found a few tidbits that I had forgotten/misremembered.
>> If you haven't looked through it recently, consider doing so - it's good input for shepherd reviews.
> I wonder why that document is not itself published as an RFC...
> Peter Saint-Andre
More information about the rfc-interest