[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sun May 27 11:15:17 PDT 2012

On May 27, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-05-27 09:04, Joe Touch wrote:
>> ...
>>> It allows checking the references automatically in a more reliable way.
>> By what, for what reason? You're all searching for a universal document format - the library science community has none, but you can do better?
> Because people get reference wrong all the time, and the easier it is to find those cases, the better. It saves elapsed time for document reviewers and the RFC Editor.

The format should be optimized for longevity first, utility of the output formats second, and flexibility of the author tools third.

Your argument for saving effort on intermediate steps is like writing a compiler that runs very efficiently, but limits what programmers can write and generates terrible code.

>>>>> - for code like ABNF: type information
>>>> Again, why? The heading that marks it, sure, but why any different from fig/table/example?
>>> It allows checking code in a more reliable way.
>> Why is code checking done by anyone but the author?
> (see above).
> Have you ever shepherded a document? Did you check code and references?

Yeah, but I didn't expect the tools to optimize that effort.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list