[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 11:28:40 PDT 2012
On 5/24/2012 11:18 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 5/24/12 12:10 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Are other folks on this list happy with the proposal to require
>> xml2rfc as mandatory for the input format for RFC publishing?
> Nit: xml2rfc is a tool. The format is a particular flavor of XML defined
> by RFC 2629.
>> would apply to all the streams (Independent, IRTF, and IAB), not just
>> IETF documents.
>> My personal preference would be to make text the input format, with
>> the expectation that the RFC Editor would continue to add the
>> necessary markup (possibly starting from XML, if it is submitted) and
>> produce the different formats. I am particularly concerned about
>> making input to the RFC series harder fro the Independent Stream.
> Two questions:
> 1. What percentage of published RFCs are IETF, IRTF, IAB, and Independent?
> 2. Can't we use tools to produce the input format needed by the RFC
> Editor? Right now you can author your I-D in XML, Word, or text. All of
> those have tools to convert the document into what the RFC Editor
> requires (you could consider idnits as a tool for the text format). I
> don't see that model changing, even if the input format changes (leading
> to changes in the particular tools used).
This is a good point - there need not be one single submission format.
The RFC Editor can decide how many they support (right now there are two
- RFC 2629 XML and text).
More information about the rfc-interest