[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Mon May 21 04:52:10 PDT 2012
On 5/15/12 8:06 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/11/2012 9:50 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> Thanks to the feedback from the community, I've modified the
>> requirements for the format of RFCs (which ties in I-D format
> Further thoughts, questions and suggestions:
> 1. Is this list a simple union of all suggestions made? If yes, why?
> If not, why? That is, what is the logic that controls the content of
> this list?
> 2. Are these all really 'requirements"? What does it mean to not
> satisfy one? If it's a requirement, is failing to satisfy it even
> allowed? If it is allowed, there should probably be a rank-ordering. (I
> also suspect that makes the goals or targets, rather than requirements.)
> 3. For each item, it would help to have an explanation that justifies
> making it appropriate to include. Otherwise this looks like an entirely
> arbitrary list.
Good questions, Dave. The list is a union of suggestions made, with my
take on prioritization based on list input and my professional input. I
should (and will) work on the list to make things a bit more clear,
particularly with regards to where something might have a trade-off or
particular cost that should be kept in mind. I'm in Iceland for the
next week but will work on this when I'm not in a session (at TNC2012).
I would like to see the various I-D on the topic of RFC Format to take
in to account the "needed" items, and if some/any/many the "wanted"
items can be solved for, great. I do not expect anything folks come up
with to be able to meet every item on this list.
More information about the rfc-interest