[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Fri Jul 6 12:55:54 PDT 2012


On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:49 , John Levine wrote:

>> Constrained HTML.

> So long as there's a mechanical two-way conversion to the XML that the
> rest of us use that fully preserves the semantics in both directions,
> that's OK with me.

I'm fine with people using XML2RFC to generate a new RFC format, but I think requiring these to be converted back into XML2RFC is too constraining.

I would even prefer the situation where we require XML2RFC source along with the RFCng during a transition phase (that could take a year or two) over the two-way conversion requirement.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list