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

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Fri Jun 22 02:53:10 PDT 2012


On 22 Jun 2012, at 11:41 , Julian Reschke wrote:

> That is incorrect. Many part of the reference are optional; <abstract> certainly is.

That's nice. But now tell me based on:

http://xml.resource.org/authoring/draft-mrose-writing-rfcs.html#references

how do I make this happen:

[1]  Cerf, V., "The Catenet Model for Internetworking," Information
     Processing Techniques Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects
     Agency, IEN 48, July 1978.

The problem with XML2RFC is that it makes perfect sense once you're an expert, but then, you first need to be an expert.

For people who already know XML I'm sure all of this is great, but for those of us who don't know XML having to learn it to be able to write drafts is cruel and unusual punishment.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list