[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Sun Apr 22 12:53:19 PDT 2012

Whatever the rules may be, the reality is that the IESG sets the rules 
for I-Ds, and the combination of the tools team (for automated 
submission) and the secretariat (for manual submission) enforce the rules.

(I personally find Heather's point that it will make everyone life 
easier if the same formats apply to the various streams to be 
well-taken.  Which implies thinking about the stream input implications 
as well as the RFC output implications.)


On 4/22/2012 2:14 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> At 09:55 22-04-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> True, but irrelevant. The RFC Editor does not get to set the I-D
>> format. It's not clear who does, but there's no need to push a
>> constitutional issue; if the RFC Editor changes the format for RFCs,
>> one hopes that the correct I* body will change the format for I-Ds.
> There isn't really an I-D format. There are the guidelines to authors of
> I-Ds ( http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.html ). It seems that
> nobody polices I-Ds. It might be futile anyway unless you want to take
> action in cases where someone obfuscates information relating to
> authorship. The only problem is IPR.
> Regards,
> -sm
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list