[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format
sm at resistor.net
Wed Apr 18 10:50:58 PDT 2012
At 08:46 18-04-2012, Joe Touch wrote:
>I'm not sure who would refer to the list below as "the RFC Format".
>Are you intending to describe the current rules, or some basic view
>of the current rules?
The text was a modified version of the PostScript Format Rules
(Appendix B of http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style ).
>There's a lines per page limit (I don't recall right now) which
>drives the point size. I'd state it as lines per page, though.
>And the spacing should be the same as the text size; there's no
>reason to assume a larger spacing.
>For rendering, *ANY* fixed-width font is fine (and any non-fixed is
>NOT) (presuming you're talking about alternate representations like
>HTML). Bold/italic can be included but since there's no indication
>of this in the source, such marking is meaningless.
>ASCII 32-126 decimal (7-bit ASCII printable except tab), LF (aka
>NL), FF, and CR.
I avoided getting into the details. What was/is being asked of
authors is pre-press work. That pre-press work is not required until
the document reaches the (RFC) publication queue. The publication
layout stuff (lines per page, characters per line) is not a
limitation as anyone can change that to suit his/her needs.
There are arguments in favor of the existing format. For example,
the technical errata at
about any extra space. The editorial errata (unverified) at
According to the RFC Editorial goals, the RFC Editor strives for
a. the document,
b. a set of documents, and
c. the series of RFCs on the subject matter.
Are those still the goals?
I don't think that striving for consistency within RFCs on a subject
matter can be reduced to 72 characters per line, 58 lines per page in
ASCII. I don't mind if it is reduced to that.
Picking some random questions off the Internet:
Informative reference: RFC 2550
More information about the rfc-interest