[rfc-i] Number of submission formats
nico at cryptonector.com
Fri Jan 18 10:18:38 PST 2013
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
<rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> On 1/18/13 9:54 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>>> Arrgh, good catch. I should have said "I propose that draft-iab-rfcformatreq add a section explicitly saying that, whatever the canonical format is be allowed as an input format."
>> We might need to distinguish between canonical output and canonical
>> input formats.
> One of the areas we have struggled with is terminology. Is it possible
> for you to phrase your suggestion using the terms defined in the draft?
I will next time.
>> Specifically, for any given RFC there should be one canonical form
>> which needn't be the same as for other RFCs (i.e., some will be .txt,
>> some will be PDF, ...). And for any input to the RFC-Editor queue
>> there should be a single canonical input form that the editors will
>> work with (XML with whatever schema, nroff, ...). Since successful
>> Internet-Drafts tend to end up in the RFC-Editor queue we should ask
>> I-D authors to use one of the input formats supported by the
> The Canonical format is the one that we default to to answer all
> questions about content. I think you are suggesting that we cannot have
> a single Canonical format for an RFC, that we would need 2 or 3. I
> think that complicates the intent behind having a Canonical format.
I'm not proposing that so much as leaving it to the RFC-Editor to
decide if there is to be a single Canonical format or a choice of them
per-RFC (that's how it seems to be now, no?).
More information about the rfc-interest