[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Fri May 25 06:39:20 PDT 2012
On 2012/05/25 3:35, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 24, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 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.
I don't, so I'm replying to this thread. Of course, all streams are
important. But on the other hand, because of the obvious volume
differences, it really doesn't make sense to give all streams the same
>> 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.
I think the choice of input format(s) will depend more on the actual
process used by the RFC Editor (and all the functions it has now been
cut up into) than the choice of canonical or output formats.
As an example, if the RFC Editor lost crucial nroff expertise and at the
same time noticed that hardly anybody submits nroff anymore, it may well
decide to discontinue nroff support without much ado.
More information about the rfc-interest