From iab-chair at iab.org Sun Feb 5 16:20:22 2012 From: iab-chair at iab.org (IAB Chair) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 16:20:22 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] Independent Submission Editor re-appointment Message-ID: <068b01cce465$1e0f97f0$5a2ec7d0$@iab.org> The Internet Architecture Board is pleased to announce the re-appointment of Nevil Brownlee as the Independent Submission Editor (ISE). The contract negotiated by the IAOC is for a term of three years. For the IAB, Bernard Aboba IAB Chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmh at joelhalpern.com Thu Feb 9 12:10:18 2012 From: jmh at joelhalpern.com (Joel M. Halpern) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:10:18 -0500 Subject: [rfc-i] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-03.txt In-Reply-To: <20120209200305.8295.63607.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20120209200305.8295.63607.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: <4F34282A.6080505@joelhalpern.com> I have posted a revision of the subject draft. Apologies to all for the delay. Yours, Joel -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action: draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-03.txt Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:03:05 -0800 From: internet-drafts at ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts at ietf.org To: i-d-announce at ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : RFC Editor Model (Version 2) Author(s) : Olaf M. Kolkman Joel M. Halpern Filename : draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-03.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2012-02-09 The RFC Editor performs a number of functions that may be carried out by various people or entities. The RFC Editor model described in this document divides the responsibilities for the RFC Series into three functions: The RFC Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight by way of delegation to the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship between the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) and the RSOC. This document reflects the experience gained with RFC Editor Model version 1, documented in [RFC5620] and obsoletes that document. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-v2-03.txt _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From julian.reschke at gmx.de Thu Feb 16 01:10:57 2012 From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:10:57 +0100 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? Message-ID: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> Hi there, now that we have a RSE, are we planning to brainstorm on potential RFC format changes in Paris? Best regards, Julian From tony at att.com Thu Feb 16 05:55:11 2012 From: tony at att.com (Tony Hansen) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:55:11 -0500 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> Message-ID: <4F3D0ABF.1000001@att.com> +1 On 2/16/2012 4:10 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Hi there, > > now that we have a RSE, are we planning to brainstorm on potential RFC > format changes in Paris? > From rse at rfc-editor.org Thu Feb 16 06:06:22 2012 From: rse at rfc-editor.org (Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:06:22 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> Message-ID: <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> On 2/16/12 1:10 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Hi there, > > now that we have a RSE, are we planning to brainstorm on potential RFC > format changes in Paris? Hi Julian, I am happy to start the conversation, but I'm not quite ready to pop to the top of my stack yet. Right now, I'm focused on a) getting my feet underneath me as RSE, b) getting the Style Guide revised, and c) figuring out some operational issues in how to implement RFC 5620. I think more serious format discussions are going to come in later this year. -Heather Flanagan, RSE From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Feb 16 06:22:20 2012 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:22:20 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> Message-ID: <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> On 2/16/2012 6:06 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote: > I am happy to start the conversation, but I'm not quite ready to pop to > the top of my stack yet. Right now, I'm focused on a) getting my feet > underneath me as RSE, b) getting the Style Guide revised, and c) > figuring out some operational issues in how to implement RFC 5620. I > think more serious format discussions are going to come in later this year. Heather, The proposal sounds like a good basis for having an informal face-2-face, to generate discussion. In effect, it would be a getting-acquainted chat, having a specific topic, rather than being entirely free-form. I think it would be fine to class it merely as 'starting a discussion' rather than 'make decisions' or 'consider proposals' or anything indicating an intent to take any near-term action. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From paul.hoffman at vpnc.org Thu Feb 16 09:19:06 2012 From: paul.hoffman at vpnc.org (Paul Hoffman) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:19:06 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <87BC3479-4BC4-4EAD-9EEB-3C815CB6AF8E@vpnc.org> On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:22 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > The proposal sounds like a good basis for having an informal face-2-face, to generate discussion. In effect, it would be a getting-acquainted chat, having a specific topic, rather than being entirely free-form. > > I think it would be fine to class it merely as 'starting a discussion' rather than 'make decisions' or 'consider proposals' or anything indicating an intent to take any near-term action. Such a discussion might also let you see how intertwined many of us find the Style Guide and the future of the format. --Paul Hoffman From julian.reschke at gmx.de Sun Feb 26 13:16:20 2012 From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:16:20 +0100 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <87BC3479-4BC4-4EAD-9EEB-3C815CB6AF8E@vpnc.org> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> <87BC3479-4BC4-4EAD-9EEB-3C815CB6AF8E@vpnc.org> Message-ID: <4F4AA124.4040203@gmx.de> On 2012-02-16 18:19, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:22 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> The proposal sounds like a good basis for having an informal face-2-face, to generate discussion. In effect, it would be a getting-acquainted chat, having a specific topic, rather than being entirely free-form. >> >> I think it would be fine to class it merely as 'starting a discussion' rather than 'make decisions' or 'consider proposals' or anything indicating an intent to take any near-term action. > > > Such a discussion might also let you see how intertwined many of us find the Style Guide and the future of the format. +1 Should we try to find a time slot that works for everybody interested? Best regards, Julian From johnl at taugh.com Sun Feb 26 14:58:04 2012 From: johnl at taugh.com (John Levine) Date: 26 Feb 2012 22:58:04 -0000 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4AA124.4040203@gmx.de> Message-ID: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> >Should we try to find a time slot that works for everybody interested? If at all possible, yes. It always helps to have a face to go with the flamage, and this topic evokes some impressively strong opinions. I'd be happy to do a three minute preso outlining some of the issues that have come up over the years, e.g., stability, long term readability, non-ASCII author names, non-ASCII other text, graphics, searchability, and document structure or the lack thereof. R's, John From touch at isi.edu Sun Feb 26 16:15:40 2012 From: touch at isi.edu (Joe Touch) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:15:40 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> Message-ID: <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> FWIW, won't be there but it might be worth discussing the editing tools that are supported. E.g., I use MS Word to write RFCs (See RFC 5385), which for me is hugely more efficient than XML. Joe On Feb 26, 2012, at 2:58 PM, John Levine wrote: >> Should we try to find a time slot that works for everybody interested? > > If at all possible, yes. It always helps to have a face to go with > the flamage, and this topic evokes some impressively strong opinions. > > I'd be happy to do a three minute preso outlining some of the issues > that have come up over the years, e.g., stability, long term > readability, non-ASCII author names, non-ASCII other text, graphics, > searchability, and document structure or the lack thereof. > > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest From touch at isi.edu Sun Feb 26 17:29:00 2012 From: touch at isi.edu (Joe Touch) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 17:29:00 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> Message-ID: <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> On 2/26/2012 4:48 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >> FWIW, won't be there but it might be worth discussing the editing >> tools that are supported. >> >> E.g., I use MS Word to write RFCs (See RFC 5385), which for me is >> hugely more efficient than XML. > > I think we all agree that whatever the canonical format is, we'll want > tools to translate from whatever editors people like, but it's worth > mentioning. FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, IMO, DOA. Joe From johnl at taugh.com Sun Feb 26 19:10:53 2012 From: johnl at taugh.com (John Levine) Date: 27 Feb 2012 03:10:53 -0000 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> Message-ID: <20120227031053.72054.qmail@joyce.lan> >> I think we all agree that whatever the canonical format is, we'll want >> tools to translate from whatever editors people like, but it's worth >> mentioning. > >FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, >IMO, DOA. We seem to have a severe confusion here between tools and document formats. I think everyone agrees that authors of drafts can use whatever tools they want to write and edit them, and we should ensure that our choice of future tools and formats lets that continue. But that has practically no bearing on what formats we eventually decide to use. Let's imagine we like the xml2rfc profile of XML. There are screen editors like xxe that can edit it directly. If people like MS Word, it wouldn't be particularly hard to write tools to translate between DOC or DOCX and xml2rfc, and if there were sufficient interest, we could commission an add-in that let Word read and write xml2rfc directly. Personally, I edit the XML in epsilon using an XML highlightimg mode because it's faster than screwing around trying to get allegedly user friendly editors to create the right markup. On the other hand, even though DOC and DOCX are semi-open (OpenOffice, Abiword, Libreoffice, etc.) there's obvious reasons that neither is appropriate for an archival format. R's, John From touch at isi.edu Sun Feb 26 19:29:38 2012 From: touch at isi.edu (Joe Touch) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:29:38 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <20120227031053.72054.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20120227031053.72054.qmail@joyce.lan> Message-ID: <4F4AF8A2.4040206@isi.edu> On 2/26/2012 7:10 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> I think we all agree that whatever the canonical format is, we'll want >>> tools to translate from whatever editors people like, but it's worth >>> mentioning. >> >> FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, >> IMO, DOA. > > We seem to have a severe confusion here between tools and document formats. The two are not independent. > I think everyone agrees that authors of drafts can use whatever tools > they want to write and edit them, Agreed. > and we should ensure that our choice > of future tools and formats lets that continue. That's where the complexity exists. > But that has > practically no bearing on what formats we eventually decide to use. > > Let's imagine we like the xml2rfc profile of XML. There are screen > editors like xxe that can edit it directly. Edit source. > If people like MS Word, > it wouldn't be particularly hard to write tools to translate between > DOC or DOCX and xml2rfc, It took quite a while to get a Word tool that generated the appropriate TXT output. It is *incredibly* hard to write tools to some formats. If anyone thinks it's easy to generate "xml2rfc" XML in Word, please demonstrate that. > and if there were sufficient interest, we > could commission an add-in that let Word read and write xml2rfc > directly. Personally, I edit the XML in epsilon using an XML > highlightimg mode because it's faster than screwing around trying to > get allegedly user friendly editors to create the right markup. > > On the other hand, even though DOC and DOCX are semi-open (OpenOffice, > Abiword, Libreoffice, etc.) there's obvious reasons that neither is > appropriate for an archival format. I agree. The concern is in selecting an archival format which is "editor friendly". Joe From tbray at textuality.com Sun Feb 26 19:35:55 2012 From: tbray at textuality.com (Tim Bray) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:35:55 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, IMO, > DOA. I wasn't aware of any authoring technology in which What You See (while writing) will approximate What You Get (while reading) on a 3.5" handset, a 7" tablet, a 10" tablet, an Amazon Kindle, a 11" MacBook Air, the 30" monitor often found on often office desktops, US letter-size paper, and European A4. If there is such a technology, please do enlighten me. If there is not, can we please stop basing arguments based on empirically nonexistent technologies, just as we do not base them on the behavior of the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. -Tim From touch at isi.edu Sun Feb 26 20:23:26 2012 From: touch at isi.edu (Joe Touch) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:23:26 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> Message-ID: On Feb 26, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > >> FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, IMO, >> DOA. > > I wasn't aware of any authoring technology in which What You See > (while writing) will approximate What You Get (while reading) on a > 3.5" handset, a 7" tablet, a 10" tablet, an Amazon Kindle, a 11" > MacBook Air, the 30" monitor often found on often office desktops, US > letter-size paper, and European A4. With the exception of Kindle (which I don't have, so cannot verify), all of the above work for me on a daily basis for PDF and DOC/DOCX. For paper printout, "shrink to fit" addresses the actual pagesize differences. The rest allow zoom and pan. There are certainly other issues; those formats are great for consistent viewing, but may not be archival. I'm assuming that we have several desirable points doc evolution to consider - again, this is a fairly old issue: - generation - archiving - displaying - searching My point is that discussions on document formats should never focus on just one of these stages, but are a tradeoff among all four (at least - there may be others). A format that's easy to display may not be easy to render. However, I consider XML a non-starter, since it's been around for quite a long while and there is still no "modern" editor. I consider "modern" an editor that doesn't force authors to write in source code. That's no more appropriate now for the IETF than are direct use of typed HTTP commands. Joe From johnl at taugh.com Sun Feb 26 21:11:56 2012 From: johnl at taugh.com (John Levine) Date: 27 Feb 2012 05:11:56 -0000 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20120227051156.76341.qmail@joyce.lan> >I wasn't aware of any authoring technology in which What You See >(while writing) will approximate What You Get (while reading) on a >3.5" handset, a 7" tablet, a 10" tablet, an Amazon Kindle, a 11" >MacBook Air, the 30" monitor often found on often office desktops, US >letter-size paper, and European A4. If there is such a technology, >please do enlighten me. Well, if you edit xml2rfc in an XML editor like xxe, then push it out through the usual toolchains, you get pretty much the same appearance on a wide variety of devices, suitably reflowed. I run it through the new xml2rfc to get HTML that looks good in web browsers, and then run the HTML through kindlegen to get a mobi that looks surprisingly good on a Kindle. I don't usually print them, but I know people who use other XML tools to produce good quality page image PDFs. Someone else wrote: > However, I consider XML a non-starter, since it's been around for quite a long > while and there is still no "modern" editor. Never looked inside a DOCX file, I gather. Guess what the X stands for. If you like point'n'click editors, xxe with the xml2rfc configuration files from Google Code isn't bad. R's, John From julian.reschke at gmx.de Mon Feb 27 00:39:39 2012 From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:39:39 +0100 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4AF8A2.4040206@isi.edu> References: <20120227031053.72054.qmail@joyce.lan> <4F4AF8A2.4040206@isi.edu> Message-ID: <4F4B414B.2020701@gmx.de> On 2012-02-27 04:29, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 2/26/2012 7:10 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>> I think we all agree that whatever the canonical format is, we'll want >>>> tools to translate from whatever editors people like, but it's worth >>>> mentioning. >>> >>> FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, >>> IMO, DOA. >> >> We seem to have a severe confusion here between tools and document >> formats. > > The two are not independent. > >> I think everyone agrees that authors of drafts can use whatever tools >> they want to write and edit them, > > Agreed. > >> and we should ensure that our choice >> of future tools and formats lets that continue. > > That's where the complexity exists. > >> But that has >> practically no bearing on what formats we eventually decide to use. >> >> Let's imagine we like the xml2rfc profile of XML. There are screen >> editors like xxe that can edit it directly. > > Edit source. > >> If people like MS Word, >> it wouldn't be particularly hard to write tools to translate between >> DOC or DOCX and xml2rfc, > > It took quite a while to get a Word tool that generated the appropriate > TXT output. It is *incredibly* hard to write tools to some formats. If > anyone thinks it's easy to generate "xml2rfc" XML in Word, please > demonstrate that. > ... That is true, but it's not the fault of the xml2rfc format, but it's caused by Word not capturing the information that would be needed. That's why it's a poor choice as editing format; it focuses on appearance instead of semantics. Best regards, Julian From julian.reschke at gmx.de Mon Feb 27 01:45:19 2012 From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:45:19 +0100 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> Message-ID: <4F4B50AF.5050603@gmx.de> On 2012-02-27 02:29, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On 2/26/2012 4:48 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >>> FWIW, won't be there but it might be worth discussing the editing >>> tools that are supported. >>> >>> E.g., I use MS Word to write RFCs (See RFC 5385), which for me is >>> hugely more efficient than XML. >> >> I think we all agree that whatever the canonical format is, we'll want >> tools to translate from whatever editors people like, but it's worth >> mentioning. > > FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, > IMO, DOA. Yes, there are conflicting requirements. Other requirements are: - free editing tools need to be available - the editing format must work well with a revision control system (textual diffs that do not contain more than was actually changed by the author) ... Best regards, Julian From miek at miek.nl Mon Feb 27 01:52:14 2012 From: miek at miek.nl (Miek Gieben) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:52:14 +0100 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4B50AF.5050603@gmx.de> References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> <4F4B50AF.5050603@gmx.de> Message-ID: <20120227095214.GA18749@miek.nl> [ Quoting at 10:45 on Feb 27 in "Re: [rfc-i] RFC form..." ] > >FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, > >IMO, DOA. > > Yes, there are conflicting requirements. > > Other requirements are: > > - free editing tools need to be available > > - the editing format must work well with a revision control system > (textual diffs that do not contain more than was actually changed by > the author) May I suggest something like Pandoc? (http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/) I'm using this myself to create XML that xml2rfc likes (https://github.com/miekg/pandoc2rfc). You still need to fiddle with some XML, but the diffs are clean, it's easy to type and powerful. Regards Miek Gieben -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From julian.reschke at gmx.de Mon Feb 27 02:06:19 2012 From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:06:19 +0100 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <20120227095214.GA18749@miek.nl> References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> <4F4B50AF.5050603@gmx.de> <20120227095214.GA18749@miek.nl> Message-ID: <4F4B559B.5090801@gmx.de> On 2012-02-27 10:52, Miek Gieben wrote: > [ Quoting at 10:45 on Feb 27 in "Re: [rfc-i] RFC form..." ] >>> FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, >>> IMO, DOA. >> >> Yes, there are conflicting requirements. >> >> Other requirements are: >> >> - free editing tools need to be available >> >> - the editing format must work well with a revision control system >> (textual diffs that do not contain more than was actually changed by >> the author) > > May I suggest something like Pandoc? (http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/) > > I'm using this myself to create XML that xml2rfc likes > (https://github.com/miekg/pandoc2rfc). You still need to fiddle with some > XML, but the diffs are clean, it's easy to type and powerful. > ... I'm actually totally happy editing in XML, so I haven't tried a front-end yet. (Note that the xml2rfc vocabulary I use for editing has many extensions that Pandoc probably does not support). Best regards, Julian From paul.hoffman at vpnc.org Mon Feb 27 07:14:58 2012 From: paul.hoffman at vpnc.org (Paul Hoffman) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:14:58 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] Editing Internet Drafts In-Reply-To: <4F4B559B.5090801@gmx.de> References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> <4F4B50AF.5050603@gmx.de> <20120227095214.GA18749@miek.nl> <4F4B559B.5090801@gmx.de> Message-ID: Changed the subject line so that it is clear that the current thread: - has nothing to do with publishing RFCs - has nothing to do with whether or not Heather wants us to meet in Paris --Paul Hoffman From touch at isi.edu Mon Feb 27 09:15:00 2012 From: touch at isi.edu (Joe Touch) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:15:00 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] Editing Internet Drafts In-Reply-To: References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> <4F4B50AF.5050603@gmx.de> <20120227095214.GA18749@miek.nl> <4F4B559B.5090801@gmx.de> Message-ID: <4F4BBA14.8020705@isi.edu> On 2/27/2012 7:14 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Changed the subject line so that it is clear that the current thread: > - has nothing to do with publishing RFCs I've already explained why this is NOT true. This is also where previous discussions about RFCs have gone. I encourage you all to look at the history of this issue and previous discussions. The requirements for RFC formats are multidimensional. I'll be glad not to participate in this one, if it's intending to start from scratch. Joe From paul.hoffman at vpnc.org Mon Feb 27 09:29:49 2012 From: paul.hoffman at vpnc.org (Paul Hoffman) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:29:49 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] Editing Internet Drafts In-Reply-To: <4F4BBA14.8020705@isi.edu> References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> <4F4B50AF.5050603@gmx.de> <20120227095214.GA18749@miek.nl> <4F4B559B.5090801@gmx.de> <4F4BBA14.8020705@isi.edu> Message-ID: <593D6198-80F4-4685-890E-B8D6A01A0B30@vpnc.org> On Feb 27, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > On 2/27/2012 7:14 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Changed the subject line so that it is clear that the current thread: >> - has nothing to do with publishing RFCs > > I've already explained why this is NOT true. I have just re-read all of the messages you sent on the earlier thread, and I don't see where you "already explained" it at all. > This is also where previous discussions about RFCs have gone. Noted. > I encourage you all to look at the history of this issue and previous discussions. It's kind of insulting for you to assume that we haven't, isn't it? > The requirements for RFC formats are multidimensional. Agree. > I'll be glad not to participate in this one, if it's intending to start from scratch. Can you point to any message on any recent thread that indicated starting from scratch? Or were you just in the mood for another strawman? --Paul Hoffman From touch at isi.edu Mon Feb 27 09:47:40 2012 From: touch at isi.edu (Joe Touch) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:47:40 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] Editing Internet Drafts In-Reply-To: <593D6198-80F4-4685-890E-B8D6A01A0B30@vpnc.org> References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> <4F4B50AF.5050603@gmx.de> <20120227095214.GA18749@miek.nl> <4F4B559B.5090801@gmx.de> <4F4BBA14.8020705@isi.edu> <593D6198-80F4-4685-890E-B8D6A01A0B30@vpnc.org> Message-ID: <4F4BC1BC.2030306@isi.edu> On 2/27/2012 9:29 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Feb 27, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > >> On 2/27/2012 7:14 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> Changed the subject line so that it is clear that the current thread: >>> - has nothing to do with publishing RFCs >> >> I've already explained why this is NOT true. > > I have just re-read all of the messages you sent on the earlier thread, and I don't see where you "already explained" it at all. I gave the reason why there are multiple formats involved in various phases, and that they're related. I.e., there's no way to pick an archival format that doesn't impact the editing format. >> This is also where previous discussions about RFCs have gone. > > Noted. > >> I encourage you all to look at the history of this issue and previous discussions. > > It's kind of insulting for you to assume that we haven't, isn't it? I made no such assumption or implication, but one could infer it from a few of the posts IMO. >> The requirements for RFC formats are multidimensional. > > Agree. > >> I'll be glad not to participate in this one, if it's intending to start from scratch. > > Can you point to any message on any recent thread that indicated starting from scratch? Or were you just in the mood for another strawman? Your earlier message above. Others did so by also claiming that the editing format had nothing to do with the archival format. All I'm suggesting is to consider these as a set, as has been discussed in detail before. Joe From rse at rfc-editor.org Mon Feb 27 09:48:04 2012 From: rse at rfc-editor.org (Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:48:04 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4AA124.4040203@gmx.de> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> <87BC3479-4BC4-4EAD-9EEB-3C815CB6AF8E@vpnc.org> <4F4AA124.4040203@gmx.de> Message-ID: <4F4BC1D4.6020408@rfc-editor.org> On 2/26/12 1:16 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-02-16 18:19, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:22 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> >>> The proposal sounds like a good basis for having an informal >>> face-2-face, to generate discussion. In effect, it would be a >>> getting-acquainted chat, having a specific topic, rather than being >>> entirely free-form. >>> >>> I think it would be fine to class it merely as 'starting a >>> discussion' rather than 'make decisions' or 'consider proposals' or >>> anything indicating an intent to take any near-term action. >> >> >> Such a discussion might also let you see how intertwined many of us >> find the Style Guide and the future of the format. > > +1 > > Should we try to find a time slot that works for everybody interested? I've put in a request for a room, though I have not requested a particular date/time. I'll follow up with the Secretariat to see what they've got available. -Heather From stpeter at stpeter.im Mon Feb 27 09:56:10 2012 From: stpeter at stpeter.im (Peter Saint-Andre) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:56:10 -0700 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4BC1D4.6020408@rfc-editor.org> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> <87BC3479-4BC4-4EAD-9EEB-3C815CB6AF8E@vpnc.org> <4F4AA124.4040203@gmx.de> <4F4BC1D4.6020408@rfc-editor.org> Message-ID: <4F4BC3BA.5000600@stpeter.im> On 2/27/12 10:48 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote: > I've put in a request for a room, though I have not requested a > particular date/time. I'll follow up with the Secretariat to see what > they've got available. A friendly warning: rooms are in short supply at this meeting! It might be worth considering a true bar (or bistro) BoF. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Feb 27 10:01:37 2012 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:01:37 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4BC1D4.6020408@rfc-editor.org> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> <87BC3479-4BC4-4EAD-9EEB-3C815CB6AF8E@vpnc.org> <4F4AA124.4040203@gmx.de> <4F4BC1D4.6020408@rfc-editor.org> Message-ID: <4F4BC501.2000508@dcrocker.net> On 2/27/2012 9:48 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote: > I've put in a request for a room, though I have not requested a > particular date/time. I'll follow up with the Secretariat to see what > they've got available. In order to facilitate remote participation, it would help to have this scheduled toward the end of the day. That permits late-night participation from Asia and early morning participation from North America. This also means asking for meetecho support, for better-than unicast audio with jabber participation. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Feb 27 10:04:58 2012 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:04:58 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: References: <20120226225804.58792.qmail@joyce.lan> <4A970982-E016-4DC2-BDEA-CC5AAF623103@isi.edu> <4F4ADC5C.4000808@isi.edu> Message-ID: <4F4BC5CA.40407@dcrocker.net> As is typical for these discussions, the tendency is to offer or reject specific solutions, without really attending to basic requirements. Tim's note was a nice exception. The capability that he suggests, which is notably not easily provided for the current .txt format, is reflowing. And for reference, I support an effort to satisfy that target. There are other such enhancements that we should consider, in terms of capabilities, not specific solutions. d/ On 2/26/2012 7:35 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > >> FWIW, my point is that a form that doesn't have a WYSIWYG editor is, IMO, >> DOA. > > I wasn't aware of any authoring technology in which What You See > (while writing) will approximate What You Get (while reading) on a > 3.5" handset, a 7" tablet, a 10" tablet, an Amazon Kindle, a 11" > MacBook Air, the 30" monitor often found on often office desktops, US > letter-size paper, and European A4. If there is such a technology, > please do enlighten me. If there is not, can we please stop basing > arguments based on empirically nonexistent technologies, just as we do > not base them on the behavior of the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From rse at rfc-editor.org Mon Feb 27 10:20:41 2012 From: rse at rfc-editor.org (Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:20:41 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4BC3BA.5000600@stpeter.im> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> <87BC3479-4BC4-4EAD-9EEB-3C815CB6AF8E@vpnc.org> <4F4AA124.4040203@gmx.de> <4F4BC1D4.6020408@rfc-editor.org> <4F4BC3BA.5000600@stpeter.im> Message-ID: <4F4BC979.2070708@rfc-editor.org> On 2/27/12 9:56 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 2/27/12 10:48 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote: > >> I've put in a request for a room, though I have not requested a >> particular date/time. I'll follow up with the Secretariat to see what >> they've got available. > > A friendly warning: rooms are in short supply at this meeting! It might > be worth considering a true bar (or bistro) BoF. :) Now why am I suddenly picturing a food fight over format? ;-) -hf From sm at resistor.net Tue Feb 28 23:20:54 2012 From: sm at resistor.net (SM) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:20:54 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4BC3BA.5000600@stpeter.im> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> <87BC3479-4BC4-4EAD-9EEB-3C815CB6AF8E@vpnc.org> <4F4AA124.4040203@gmx.de> <4F4BC1D4.6020408@rfc-editor.org> <4F4BC3BA.5000600@stpeter.im> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20120228231615.0b84bb70@resistor.net> Hi Peter, At 09:56 27-02-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >A friendly warning: rooms are in short supply at this meeting! It might >be worth considering a true bar (or bistro) BoF. :) Let me see if I understood correctly. You are in Paris. You go to a bistro. And you spend your time there discussing about ASCII technology? If you want to make productive use of your time, sample the wine. :-) Regards, -sm From julian.reschke at gmx.de Tue Feb 28 23:52:09 2012 From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:52:09 +0100 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120228231615.0b84bb70@resistor.net> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> <87BC3479-4BC4-4EAD-9EEB-3C815CB6AF8E@vpnc.org> <4F4AA124.4040203@gmx.de> <4F4BC1D4.6020408@rfc-editor.org> <4F4BC3BA.5000600@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120228231615.0b84bb70@resistor.net> Message-ID: <4F4DD929.4070804@gmx.de> On 2012-02-29 08:20, SM wrote: > Hi Peter, > At 09:56 27-02-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> A friendly warning: rooms are in short supply at this meeting! It might >> be worth considering a true bar (or bistro) BoF. :) > > Let me see if I understood correctly. You are in Paris. You go to a > bistro. And you spend your time there discussing about ASCII technology? > If you want to make productive use of your time, sample the wine. :-) Maybe the vin rouge or la biere belgique will help making progress on that. Anyway, it would be good to find a time slot. Around the RFC production session on Sunday? Best regards, Julian From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Feb 29 05:54:19 2012 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:54:19 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4BC979.2070708@rfc-editor.org> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> <87BC3479-4BC4-4EAD-9EEB-3C815CB6AF8E@vpnc.org> <4F4AA124.4040203@gmx.de> <4F4BC1D4.6020408@rfc-editor.org> <4F4BC3BA.5000600@stpeter.im> <4F4BC979.2070708@rfc-editor.org> Message-ID: <4F4E2E0B.2000103@dcrocker.net> On 2/27/2012 10:20 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote: > Now why am I suddenly picturing a food fight over format?;-) /bar/ bof. in france. worry about flamb?. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From rse at rfc-editor.org Wed Feb 29 07:25:38 2012 From: rse at rfc-editor.org (Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:25:38 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4DD929.4070804@gmx.de> References: <4F3CC821.6080901@gmx.de> <4F3D0D5E.7090300@rfc-editor.org> <4F3D111C.9090009@dcrocker.net> <87BC3479-4BC4-4EAD-9EEB-3C815CB6AF8E@vpnc.org> <4F4AA124.4040203@gmx.de> <4F4BC1D4.6020408@rfc-editor.org> <4F4BC3BA.5000600@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120228231615.0b84bb70@resistor.net> <4F4DD929.4070804@gmx.de> Message-ID: <4F4E4372.1050307@rfc-editor.org> On 2/28/12 11:52 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-02-29 08:20, SM wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> At 09:56 27-02-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> A friendly warning: rooms are in short supply at this meeting! It might >>> be worth considering a true bar (or bistro) BoF. :) >> >> Let me see if I understood correctly. You are in Paris. You go to a >> bistro. And you spend your time there discussing about ASCII technology? >> If you want to make productive use of your time, sample the wine. :-) > > Maybe the vin rouge or la biere belgique will help making progress on that. > Have I mentioned how much I'm looking forward to being in France? > Anyway, it would be good to find a time slot. Around the RFC production > session on Sunday? > Looks like we have a formal BoF, on the agenda and everything. Time = Tuesday @ 17:10-18:10. I'll also be spending a lot of time at the RFC Editor desk in case folks don't know what I look like. Nevil Brownlee, ISE, has offered to be co-chair of the BoF and help me turn over the tables and duck behind them if and when things get interesting. -Heather From johnl at taugh.com Wed Feb 29 08:10:18 2012 From: johnl at taugh.com (John Levine) Date: 29 Feb 2012 16:10:18 -0000 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <4F4E4372.1050307@rfc-editor.org> Message-ID: <20120229161018.32835.qmail@joyce.lan> >Looks like we have a formal BoF, on the agenda and everything. Time = >Tuesday @ 17:10-18:10. I'll also be spending a lot of time at the RFC >Editor desk in case folks don't know what I look like. > >Nevil Brownlee, ISE, has offered to be co-chair of the BoF and help me >turn over the tables and duck behind them if and when things get >interesting. Unless someone objects, I'm putting together a short preso about the formats we use now (line printer image aka plain ASCII, nroff, and xml2rfc), issues with current format (non-ASCII names, other non-ASCII text, graphics, metadata), and some considerations about any formats we might want to use (e.g., stable, open, adequate tools, unpaid draft authors can and will use them). R's, John From rse at rfc-editor.org Wed Feb 29 09:22:47 2012 From: rse at rfc-editor.org (Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:22:47 -0800 Subject: [rfc-i] RFC format: any discussions at the Paris IETF? In-Reply-To: <20120229161018.32835.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20120229161018.32835.qmail@joyce.lan> Message-ID: <4F4E5EE7.2040707@rfc-editor.org> On 2/29/12 8:10 AM, John Levine wrote: >> Looks like we have a formal BoF, on the agenda and everything. Time = >> Tuesday @ 17:10-18:10. I'll also be spending a lot of time at the RFC >> Editor desk in case folks don't know what I look like. >> >> Nevil Brownlee, ISE, has offered to be co-chair of the BoF and help me >> turn over the tables and duck behind them if and when things get >> interesting. > > Unless someone objects, I'm putting together a short preso about > the formats we use now (line printer image aka plain ASCII, nroff, > and xml2rfc), issues with current format (non-ASCII names, other > non-ASCII text, graphics, metadata), and some considerations about > any formats we might want to use (e.g., stable, open, adequate tools, > unpaid draft authors can and will use them). That would be extremely useful to me, certainly! If you can put that together, I'll get it up on the wiki space which I've heard rumor is around here somewhere prior to the meeting. -Heather