[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri May 25 22:47:58 PDT 2012

On May 25, 2012, at 7:51 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> Would it help to distinguish between the authoring format and the
> submission format?
> I could not give a hoot what the authoring format is that people use.
> No really, knock yourself out engraving it into little stone pyramids
> if you like.
> What is of significance is the submission format(s) and the internal format.
> It almost certainly makes best sense for the IETF tools to use a
> single format internally even if multiple submission formats are
> supported. So that format might be XML2RFC, or HTML or even nroff. All
> that matters is that the submission format be machine parseable to
> identify the various elements (sections, abstract, boilerplate, etc.)
> and that the internal format is not lossy.
> So I don't think we should argue over the internal format at all. Let
> the tools group decide on that according to what is easiest for them.
> I don't think we need argue XML2RFC or HTML as a submission format
> either since we can already turn XML2RFC into something very close to
> what we want for the other and we need to be able to convert in the
> reverse direction anyway to know we can round-trip.
> So if someone really wanted Word to be a submission format, that would
> be fine as well. All they would need to do is provide an appropriate
> filter that can be added to the site. Same for LaTeX or for anything
> that seemed to be reasonable and had a user base and could capture the
> meta-data.

The key issue is "what is the required metadata".

If it's minimal, it should be easy for most author systems to support:
	- title
	- authors
	- date
	- RFC number
	- RFC category and status
	internal "jump" points:
	- headings
	- figure/table/example labels
	- references

I'd really like to see what that is beyond the list I've shown here. I can see a good reason for metadata (supports document identification/location) and jump points (supports navigation based on "landmarks").

If it requires denoting the full document structure, that's hard to impossible, and not clear why that would/should be a requirement.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list