[rfc-i] Internet-Draft Formats

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Thu Jul 12 09:21:26 PDT 2012


On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
> We have heard at least one person say something like: "We can't change the format to <whatever> because that format is not acceptable as an Internet-Draft, and the input to the RFC process is an Internet-Draft".
>
> >From my perspective, Internet-Draft formats should not be a reason to constrain the formats considered for RFCs.  My assumption is that the RSE will eventually come to a proposed way forward, and share that with the four RFC stream managers.  If there is strong consensus for the way forward, this will be a pro forma step.  If the consensus is very rough, this may not be a pro forma step.  Once there is an agreed way forward, we will figure out how to support that format for Internet-Drafts as well as RFCs.


Could we perhaps do this in reverse even?

The main coding effort required to effect a change is to change the
RFC Editor toolset so that instead of it using a lossy document format
(nroff), it uses a non-lossy format.

The drafts production also has a tools set but it is a lot smaller as
drafts do not require human intervention before publication.

We could start the process of transition by simply changing the ID
submission tool so that instead of TXT format being a MUST and the
others being second ranked it was possible to submit a draft in
XML2RFC format and have the TXT, HTML and PDF all generated from that.

If there was a concern about people then using the ID submission site
to check their drafts rather than the tool site, the submission
process could be modified to require the email callback before doing
the checking.


Only having to upload one file rather than three would greatly
simplify things for me as an author.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list