[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri May 25 07:21:16 PDT 2012

On May 24, 2012, at 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.
> 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.

If the RFC Editor's only decision criteria is "what would make my life easier", they should prefer to have only one submission format. If they have other criteria such as "we want to make publication in the RFC series available to authors who don't want to learn XML", they might prefer to have something easier (for the author) as well.

--Paul Hoffman

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list