[rfc-i] Number of submission formats

Marc Blanchet marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca
Fri Jan 18 11:58:45 PST 2013

Le 2013-01-18 à 14:46, John R Levine a écrit :

>> multiple inputs may work but brings less efficiency in the whole process (from initial draft to RFC publication)
> Sure, but efficiency isn't the only criterion.

not it is not. But it should be an important one to discuss. And more about using the same format from beginning to end (whatever format it is decided), than the format itself.

>  The goal is to bring documents from the volunteer authors through the editorial process and produce RFCs.  While I am perfectly happy to write in xml2rfc,

that is one possible format.  (I use it and like it overall, with minor reservations, but that is not the real point).

> there are lots of other people who, for whatever reason, aren't.

ok. but things change over time. I agree that before it was more complicated. tools have been improved, etc…

Again, maybe the end canonical format is not RFC2629, but whatever canonical format we decide to use, it would be very useful and efficient for all of us to use the same from beginning to end. 

> In any event, this is Heather's decision, not ours, and I know better than to try and tell her what to do.
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list