[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri May 25 08:27:52 PDT 2012

On May 25, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 5/25/12 8:33 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
>> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Since the RFC Editor is _not_ the author of most of the documents
>> that are to be published as RFC, it will be essential that the 
>> submission format can be automatically generated from 
>> easy-to-use authoring formats.
> The lack of easy-to-use authoring formats doesn't seem to have hindered
> publication of 6500+ RFCs so far.

I've written docs in nroff, xml2rfc, and Word.

The current Word template - which I maintain - is as easy to use as writing any conference paper, including support for outline mode and outline-based structural editing.

The two things I wish I could change about it:

	1) it requires use of a textonly printer driver, which
	currently exists only on Windows (I've talked to some at
	Apple, but I don't know enough about CUPS to write my own
	driver, and haven't found any that suffice yet, paid or 

	2) it requires use of a post-processing script
	This might be easy to fix using a script inside Word, but
	I'm not that familiar with how to do that

If anyone wants to help with either of these, BTW, please let me know.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list