[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu May 24 11:35:30 PDT 2012


On May 24, 2012, at 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.

Good catch: "The XML format we have all gotten used to calling xml2rfc".

>> This
>> 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?

Why on earth should that matter? "We make up most of the RFCs published, so our desires are more important than theirs"? If you want to turn this into "RFCs are only for the IETF", start a new thread.

> 2. Can't we use tools to produce the input format needed by the RFC
> Editor?

Yes.

> 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).

If that's the case, then why not continue to accept multiple input formats? Joe's statement was that there had to be one.

--Paul Hoffman



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list