[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Hildebrand jhildebr at cisco.com
Sat May 26 08:51:08 PDT 2012

On 5/26/12 9:20 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:

> On May 26, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
>> On 5/26/12 12:40 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>>>> I assume the sections are separated by a header, which has a depth
>>>> associated with it?  Everything between headers is in the same section.
>>> But not necessarily the same container.
>> You can intuit a container (and add it if need-be) if the sections are
>> separated.  I'd walk through the logic for it, but you haven't been
>> interested in algorithms to this point.  Perhaps you could either care, or
>> take my word for it?
> If that's always true (an I don't think so - I gave an example that could need
> other one list container or two),

An example that is impossible to generate with *your* tool.

> then you can do this on a file submitted
> without containers - or even on on output without them too.  So you've just
> proven we don't ever need to put them in.

Sigh.  Which is why I originally agreed with you.

> Extraction is editing.

Now we're arguing over the meaning of words, in a place where the
distinction doesn't matter, in order to try to push others around with
rhetorical tricks.

I call foul.

> And you still haven't shown why extraction needs
> structure except to copy text in one group without headers - and that is a
> contrived academic example that you haven't shown the requirement for.

I love how "academic" is used as a pejorative here.

Another example: if I'm IANA, I'd like to be able to extract all of the
"IANA Considerations" sections easily.

I don't understand why it's not obvious that a little more structure is a
good thing, allowing us to start to use our documents in ways that haven't
been possible in the past.

Joe Hildebrand

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list