[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sat May 26 08:53:53 PDT 2012

On May 26, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Russ Housley wrote:

> Joe:
>>> - for code like ABNF: type information
>> Again, why? The heading that marks it, sure, but why any different from fig/table/example?
> Code can be extracted from an I-D or RFC under a different license than text.  Clear differentiation of code and text would be very helpful.

Code compiles. Text does not.

The current code license does not require that code be marked, e.g.:


Code is indicated from context. There's absolutely no reason to be able to find "all the code in RFCs XXXX-YYYY", any more than there's a reason to find "all lists of requirements" in such docs.

I think we're losing sight of one key assumption of this process IMO - we need to "jump" forward to a version that is currently useful, not one that might serve some potential future utility.

Again, what are the *requirements* that are driving this sort of need for marking? We cannot possibly be including "every mechanism anyone MIGHT find helpful in the future".


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list