[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Sun Apr 22 11:27:16 PDT 2012


On 4/22/12 6:02 AM, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 03:11:26PM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
>> I observe that several of your baskets include
>>
>> " * Need to be able to include complex graphics/equations"
>>
>> I think it may not be accurate to conflate these two.
> 
> +1
> 
>> think it is actively beneficial to force authors to describe protocols
>> in clear English without recourse to pictures.
> 
> and +1;
> 
> Also, the lists provided for discussion tend to favor change based on
> the, naturally biased, discussion on this list.  I, for one, am not
> convinced we need anything but i18n, where the most compelling argument
> for that IMHO is the already mentioned capability to provide examples
> for protocols that use non-ASCII characters.
> 
> I am also further confused why the lists contained items for internet-drafts,
> since those are solely IETF business.

Because while the I-D format is definitely an IETF decision, if I choose
something for the final published RFC that ends up requiring a great
deal of conversion from the I-D to the published document, the IETF and
the RFC Editor needs to understand and accept that work.

Does that help?

-Heather Flanagan


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list