[rfc-i] Number of submission formats

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Jan 18 10:02:11 PST 2013

On 1/18/13 9:54 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>> Arrgh, good catch. I should have said "I propose that draft-iab-rfcformatreq add a section explicitly saying that, whatever the canonical format is be allowed as an input format."
> We might need to distinguish between canonical output and canonical
> input formats.

One of the areas we have struggled with is terminology.  Is it possible
for you to phrase your suggestion using the terms defined in the draft?

> Specifically, for any given RFC there should be one canonical form
> which needn't be the same as for other RFCs (i.e., some will be .txt,
> some will be PDF, ...).  And for any input to the RFC-Editor queue
> there should be a single canonical input form that the editors will
> work with (XML with whatever schema, nroff, ...).  Since successful
> Internet-Drafts tend to end up in the RFC-Editor queue we should ask
> I-D authors to use one of the input formats supported by the
> RFC-Editor.

The Canonical format is the one that we default to to answer all
questions about content.  I think you are suggesting that we cannot have
a single Canonical format for an RFC, that we would need 2 or 3.  I
think that complicates the intent behind having a Canonical format.

-Heather Flanagan

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list