[rfc-i] Number of submission formats

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Fri Jan 18 14:00:17 PST 2013


On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir at checkpoint.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> or c) you want the reflow-able html to be generated, like so:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-williams-websec-session-continue-prob-00.html

or d) you want to see the bloody source for whatever reason.

>> I can't imagine the RFC-Editor being happy to work with the formatted
>> .txt only as an input.  Say I edited an I-D that way, formatting and
>> paginating by hand (don't laugh, I used to, though I had a script to
>> do the pagination)…
>
> They'll take just the txt version, although they'll grumble. RFC 4478 had no nroff or xml source.

!

> Currently, Internet Drafts look very similar to RFCs. I think we'll want to keep that similarity.

+1

One set of tools for formatting I-Ds and RFCs seems a lot better than
two distinct sets of tools.  This is an issue that's been lingering,
that we've not yet resolved.  It's entirely possible that we might end
up wanting two sets of tools, though I haven't yet seen a single
reason why we might.  E.g., we might want different Canonical output
formats for RFCs and I-Ds, but, aside from differences in boilerplate,
why would we?!

Nico
--


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list