[rfc-i] Who uses Word, was Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Tue May 29 11:52:26 PDT 2012

On 5/29/2012 11:47 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/29/12 11:51 AM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu>  wrote:
>> You're adding requirements that have not been stated before.
> I thought we had the ability to retrieve information from the document on
> the list of requirements.  If not, it should be.

Raw info and meta info, but we had no requirement that lists be tagged 
and retrievable as such, nor did we require code, ABNF, or anything else 
be tagged in the output formats.

> As well, it's completely reasonable that as we talk more about the solution
> space, we'll reach consensus on added requirements.
>> We need a list of requirements to determine what solutions exist, or
>> whether there is no solution at all.
> I would suggest we can also clarify the priority of the requirements to see
> if there is a solution that is better than what we have without tracking to
> *all* of the lower-priority requirements.
> Unless we're trying to prove that there is no solution, so we have to stay
> with the broken status quo rather than improving at all.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list