[rfc-i] Are people actually reading draft-iab-rfcformatreq?
Andrew G. Malis
agmalis at gmail.com
Fri Dec 21 10:46:02 PST 2012
I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly have read it. As an author,
my primary concern has actually been the submission format, and the
requirement for tools that would allow authors to concentrate on their
content, and not have to worry about the rest. I've spoken up about this
several times. I'm also less concerned about what the actual submission
format ends up being, just that whatever it is, there must be tools
available to make the author's job as easy as possible.
However, I can see how, with the multiplicity of formats discussed both in
the draft and in the discussions, people can get them mixed up or focus on
details that really belong in a discussion of one of the other formats.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>wrote:
> This is a serious question. Heather has not been leading the discussion on
> this list, but that is no reason for people to ignore her document.
> draft-iab-rfcformatreq explicitly says that several publication formats
> will be created. However, most commenters on the threads for more than a
> month speak of their requirements for "the RFC format".
> If people ignore the changes that we are discussing and keep going back to
> "here is what I want in the one publication format", we will not progress.
> Worse, Heather will not have good input to her decision process on what the
> initial set of publication formats should be, and then everyone will blame
> her for not listening to them, even though they weren't actually talking
> about her proposal.
> --Paul Hoffman
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest