[rfc-i] RFC Format requirements draft

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Sep 21 12:57:08 PDT 2012


On 9/21/12 11:17 AM, SM wrote:
> Hi Heather, Nevil,
> At 08:50 21-09-2012, RFC Series Editor wrote:
>> The "RFC Series Format Development" I-D has been published,
>> documenting community and RFC Editor requirements for changes to the
>> RFC format.  Discussion of these requirements will be held on the
>
>   "This document takes a look at the current requirements for RFCs as
>    described in RFC 2223"
>
> If I am not mistaken, the current requirements are described in 2223bis.
Actually, that's an interesting question that came up while we were
drafting the document.  Given that 2223bis was never published, is it
appropriate to refer to that document? Half the folks said yes, half
said no.


>
>   "Will allow better support for international authors, in
>    particular allowing authors to spell their names in their
>    native character sets."
>
> It's better not to call them "international authors".  It makes
> existing authors sound provincial. :-)
I see your point, but saying "non-US or other people with a tiny
alphabet" didn't sound good either.  Any suggestions?


>
> Speaking of tools, see
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/msg03099.html
>
> The following is not important.  Feel free to ignore.
>
> The draft does not mention that RFCs follow a US-centric approach for
> historical reasons.  The change is more about moving from a (US)
> paper-based style to a device-friendly style.    BTW, there is still
> have the problem of pagination but that's only matters for the
> referenced version of the document.  As most people refer to the IETF
> version of a document anyway, what you do about the referenced version
> is not a solution which everyone has to agree to.  You could even call
> it a the distributed format instead of a publication format.  That
> takes look-and-feel out of the equation.
Interesting point. Won't ignore it.

-Heather


>
> Regards,
> -sm



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list