[rfc-i] RFC Style guide

Bob Brade braden at isi.edu
Thu Jan 27 14:00:57 PST 2011

On 1/19/2011 12:06 PM, Glenn Kowack wrote:
> Peter,
>      revising, reorganizing, and updating the Style Guide (along with the Procedures
> Manual) is called out as a priority in the TRSE (transitional RFC Series Editor)
> recommendations.  I also call out that 1) I'd like to see greater participation by
> the community in creating the style guide and 2) it may be useful to have two
> parts to the style guide: a) consisting of a small set of 'musts' that are enforced
> by the Editorial (RPC) staff, and b) a large set of guidelines, examples,  and
> recommendations.

Regarding the RFC Editor as of a year ago (I have not looked at it 
since), it did attempt to make clear what were requirements and what 
were recommendations. Making it two separate documents seems to me not 
only overkill but also creating undesirable rigidity.

>    The former will be very slow in changing and intentionally
> small; the latter will probably change with greater frequency and have more
> active community participation in its creation than would (a).
> Publishing the Style Guide as an RFC is an excellent idea. I'd like to see a
> discussion about that here, starting with:
> 	- why should the Style Guide be an RFC?
> 	- are there any reasons why the Style Guide should not be?
Yes, there are (or were) reasons, else the former RSE would have 
published it as an RFC. The style guidelines were changing fairly 
rapidly, so we decided that the Style Guide should be a "living 
document" for ease of maintenance and currency. And the RFC Editor could 
not reasonably be accused of opposing use of the RFC process.

Perhaps the style has stabilized since then, which might weaken this 
argument for the future.

It has always been readily and immediately available ('one click away") 
on the RFC Editor web site. Why isn't a URL good enough in today's world?

Bob Braden

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list