[rfc-i] RFC Format: Update from IETF85

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Thu Nov 8 13:05:46 PST 2012

Hello all,

Thank you for the active discussion in the room and on jabber!  I am
working on merging my notes with Nevil's and will get those posted
shortly.  While I'm working on that, however, I thought a short update
on what I got out of the session was in order.

0. People interested in keeping the current format unchanged and people
interested in modification were both represented in the room.  Good, I
had hoped to get multi-partisan representation.

1. There are some requirements that are still just assumed in the doc
and not explicitly stated in the requirements section, such as
archivablility and persistence.  Must Fix.

2. There is still confusion on which format we are actually discussing,
given the fact that "format" can mean different things at different
stages of the process.  Clarification needed in the draft. (We are
talking about the canonical format.)

There were more interesting points made; the above list were some of the
highlights for me.  The rest of the points captured will be posted in
the minutes in the next few days.

I will put together one more rev of the I-D in the next week.  Please
feel free to provide additional comments regarding the requirements to
this list.

Heather Flanagan, RSE

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list