[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 14:52:46 PDT 2012

On 5/24/2012 2:47 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/24/12 2:49 PM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu>  wrote:
>>> If that's the case, then why not continue to accept multiple input formats?
>>> Joe's statement was that there had to be one.
>> There has to be one canonical format. There does not have to be one
>> input format for submission.
> There doesn't *have* to be one input format for all submissions, but if I
> were the RFC editor, I'd sure prefer that, in order to drastically reduce
> the amount of tooling required.  N input formats * M output formats = a
> mess.

No; N input formats, hopefully ONE canonical archival format, and N 
output formats

Right now that's already true, FWIW.

> I would say that for a *given* submission, I would like there to be exactly
> one input, from which all of the output formats are generated.  If we don't
> take this approach, there's no way, short of heroic human effort, to ensure
> that the multiple inputs say the same thing.

There shouldn't be multiples for a given submission - there should be 
one, but it need not be a single format for all submissions.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list