[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat May 26 02:20:36 PDT 2012

On 2012-05-26 07:47, Joe Touch wrote:
> 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:
> 	metadata:
> 	- 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.
> Joe

- metadata of referenced documents; at least to the level that it's 
clear what is referenced in the case of IETF/W3C/... documents

- for code like ABNF: type information


Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list