[rfc-i] comments on "Format FAQ"

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thu Feb 27 23:51:14 PST 2014


On 2014/02/28 0:18, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> On 2/26/14 10:30 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2014-02-26 23:31, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>>> A new version is posted: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/FormatFAQ.html

>>> "Will you republish any RFCs in the new Canonical format?"
>>>
>>>      No. No changes will be made to already-published RFCs.
>>
>> I still believe we should in those cases where we can.
>>
>
> I believe that if we start messing with already-published documents, we
> would undermine the whole principle of RFCs not changing once published.

We should definitely try hard to avoid that. But even currently, we have 
RFCs in different forms (the .txt-like HTML versions on tools.ietf.org, 
pdfs, and so on), so as long as the textual content is the same, it may 
not be too much of a problem.

>   Granted, we would not be touching the canonical version (the .txt) of
> those older RFCs, but I think we would find it difficult to make clear
> that the .txt is the canonical version for those RFCs, not the xml we
> would have to clean up and use to create the newer style publication
> formats.

What about a label (attribute) in the format (e.g. XML) indicating 
whether it's a canonical document or not? As I understand it, we already 
have a lot of XML reverse-engineered from old and very old .txt RFCs.

Regards,   Martin.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list