[rfc-i] RFCs are mostly for the IETF? (was: Re: Proposed new RFC submission requirements)
stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu May 24 11:44:22 PDT 2012
On 5/24/12 12:35 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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
>>> 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
> 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
Done (changing "only" to "mostly").
The RFC Production Center has 4 "customers" (we call them streams). If
95% of its "business" comes from the IETF stream, and 5% from the other
streams, then that might relevant to its considerations -- *if* we
assume that the workers in a stream differ from workers in other streams
with regard to their authoring capabilities. You seem to assume that
such differences exist. I tend to think that the differences within a
stream are just as significant as those across streams (at least, all of
those posting diverse opinions here are most active in the IETF stream).
So I don't know that the per-stream requirements will be all that different.
More information about the rfc-interest