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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jun 22 08:14:48 PDT 2012

On 2012-06-22 11:53, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 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.

There's a mailing list where you can ask for advice.

> 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.

So is using Word, using Nroff, or formatting the plain text manually. 
The interesting question is which of these choices minimizes the pain 
and maximizes the quality of the output.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list