[rfc-i] Editing Internet Drafts

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Mon Feb 27 09:47:40 PST 2012

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.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list