[rfc-i] Number of submission formats

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Jan 18 10:28:16 PST 2013


On Jan 18, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:

> 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?

Current text in 1.1:

   Submission format = the format submitted to the RFC Editor for
   editorial revision and publication

      *  Currently: formatted plain text (required), XML (optional),
         NROFF (optional) 
. . .
   Canonical format = the authorized, recognized, accepted, and archived
   version of the document

      *  Currently: formatted  plain text



Proposed addition to 3.2:

The Canonical format will be allowed as a Submission format.

*or*

The Canonical format will be the new required Submission format.

Arguments in favor of the first would be "less political hassle than forcing the streams to adopt a new format for submission" and "many/most RFC authors will start using the canonical format for Internet Draft development anyway, so the RFC Editor will still get time savings". Arguments in favor of the second would be "the RFC Editor does not need to convert any Internet Draft before editing, and thus time will be saved and errors will be avoided" and "there will be less surprise during AUTH48".

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list