[rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

Paul E. Jones paulej at packetizer.com
Wed May 9 06:19:52 PDT 2012

On 5/9/2012 9:11 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> ...which means: little metadata or no metadata to rely on, right?
>> I am not sure quite what you mean there.
> A way to programatically extract all the information xml2rfc captures 
> for us, such as author names, WG information, "updates"/"obsoletes" 
> information, references, ABNF, copyright status, ...

The RFC Editor publishes all of this metadata as an XML document that is 
independent of any RFC.  Why would we need to have this information 
inside the RFC itself?  And if we did, some information would still be 
lacking.  For example, if an RFC is updated or is made obsolete, the XML 
document published by the RFC Editor would contain that information, but 
an RFC document obviously cannot predict the future.

I have a tool (not xml2rfc) that provides this metadata to me based on 
the aforementioned XML document.  I don't see a need to have it somehow 
bound to the format of the RFC itself.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list