This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
formatreq [2012/05/07 12:49] rsewikiadmin fix formating |
formatreq [2013/05/31 09:25] (current) rsewikiadmin |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | Draft-Edit (what authors worry about when writing an I-D) | + | ====== RFC 6949 ====== |
- | * Respect for authors names (Limit to character set prevents proper display of all names) | + | Note that the requirements have been gathered |
- | * Authors need a way to update documents easily | + | |
- | * Need to be able to include complex graphics/equations | + | |
- | * Need be able to diff versions of a draft | + | |
- | * Need to be able to create new documents by hacking away at older ones | + | |
- | * Want a more flexible line length | + | |
- | * Want to be able to tag ownership/source of comments | + | |
+ | ---- | ||
- | Draft-Review (what authors, Ads, and working groups worry about when reviewing an I-D) | + | The RFC Series has been in existence for over 40 years. |
- | * Respect | + | |
- | * Need to be able to include complex graphics/ | + | |
- | * Need be able to diff versions of a draft | + | |
- | * Want a more flexible | + | |
- | * Want to be able to tag ownership/source | + | |
- | RFC-Edit (what RFC editors worry about when editing a document) | + | Canonical source and display versions of an RFC exists for several reasons: |
- | * Respect for authors names (Limit | + | * to provide verification |
- | * Need to be able to include complex graphics/ | + | * to verify the final content of a document in cases of legal dispute |
- | * Want a common source file type (lack of one common source file type results in more training on markup language (nroff, xml) and inconsistency in output) | + | * to aid in the conversion |
- | * Want a single, discrete source file for a draft (not multiple files and a make file) | + | |
- | * Want a publicly available " | + | |
- | * Need source file to be editable | + | |
- | RFC-Archive (what the RFC Editor | + | The very basic format of RFC source and display documents have two persistent characteristics that are considered by the RFC Series |
- | * Need format | + | * persistence (tools |
- | * Need one format | + | * convertibility (the plain text version |
- | * Need to be able to create new documents by hacking away at older ones | + | |
- | * Need backward compatibility to recreate documents originally created in an older version | + | |
- | End consumption | + | That said, the very simple nature of the current display format in particular introduces a variety of limitations, |
- | | + | * ASCII art is considered by some to be a major limitation in expressing visually-oriented information |
- | * Want to be able to link sections | + | * the internationalization of the authorship and the Internet is introducing characters not possible in plain ASCII |
- | * Want intelligent html-style linking within references | + | * the more common forms of display |
- | * Want the RFC to be suitable for small screens/ | + | |
- | * Want to have neat printing (intelligent pagination) | + | |
- | * Need to be able to search | + | So, the community and the RFC Editor have decided to review the canonical format of the RFC series and discuss whether it needs to change |
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | === Fundamental requirement === | ||
+ | * Any new format MUST continue the level of persistence found in the existing format | ||
+ | * While the canonical source format MUST be easily converted in to a variety of other formats, a single canonical display format must exist to satisfy the requirements of legal and content disputes | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === Draft-Edit, Review (what authors, ADs, and other interested parties | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Note that requiring change to I-D format is outside the purview of the RFC Series Editor. | ||
+ | ^ Feature | ||
+ | | Need broader character encoding for author names | No | Yes, with limitations | ||
+ | | Need to be able to update documents easily and see how they might look when published | ||
+ | | Need to be able to include non-ASCII | ||
+ | | Need to be able to create new documents by hacking away at older ones | Yes | Yes | | | ||
+ | | Need be able to diff versions of a draft | Yes | Yes | | | ||
+ | | Need format to be easily rendered in to other, potentially undefined formats (.txt, .html, other) | ||
+ | | Need to be able to search document and document repositories with tools such as *grep | Yes | Yes | | | ||
+ | | Want broader character encoding for body of document | ||
+ | | Want the ability to denote protocol examples using the character sets those examples support | ||
+ | | Want the ability to semantically tag some document info, at least authors' | ||
+ | | Want to be able to include equations | Limited | ||
+ | | Want a more flexible line length | ||
+ | | Want to be able to tag ownership/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === RFC-Edit === | ||
+ | // | ||
+ | ^ Feature | ||
+ | | Need source file to be editable by both authors | ||
+ | | Want a single, discrete source file for a draft (not multiple files and a make file) | No | Yes | RFC Ed currently accepts XML and nroff and does all the necessary conversions as part of the editorial process | | ||
+ | | Want a publicly available " | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === RFC-Archive === | ||
+ | //what the RFC Editor worries about when publishing an RFC// | ||
+ | ^ Feature | ||
+ | | Need source format to be easily rendered | ||
+ | | Need one source and display format to be the authoritative version, suitable for legal records | ||
+ | | Need to be able to create new documents by hacking away at older ones | Yes | Yes | | | ||
+ | | Need backward compatibility to recreate documents originally created in an older version of the output tools (backward compatibility issue doesn' | ||
+ | | Need a long-lived file format with an open specification, | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === End consumption === | ||
+ | ^ Feature | ||
+ | | Need to be able to see non-ASCII graphics/ | ||
+ | | Need to be able to search document and document repositories with tools such as *grep | Yes | Yes | | | ||
+ | | Need to be able to create new documents by hacking away at older ones | Yes | Yes | | | ||
+ | | Want intelligent html-style linking within references | ||
+ | | Want the RFC to be suitable for small screens/ | ||
+ | | Want to have neat printing (intelligent pagination) | ||
+ | | Want to be able to view equations | ||
+ | | Want a more flexible line length | ||
+ | | Want a single | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | This list is a union of suggestions made on the rfc-interest list, in conversations with the RFC Production Center, and RFC Series Advisory Group, with my take on prioritization based on list input and my professional input. |