[rfc-i] Number of submission formats

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Jan 18 16:03:16 PST 2013

On 1/18/13 10:28 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> 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?
> Current text in 1.1:
>    Submission format = the format submitted to the RFC Editor for
>    editorial revision and publication
>       *  Currently: formatted plain text (required), XML (optional),
>          NROFF (optional) 
> . . .
>    Canonical format = the authorized, recognized, accepted, and archived
>    version of the document
>       *  Currently: formatted  plain text

Thank you.

> Proposed addition to 3.2:
> The Canonical format will be allowed as a Submission format.
> *or*
> The Canonical format will be the new required Submission format.
> Arguments in favor of the first would be "less political hassle 
> than forcing the streams to adopt a new format for submission" 
> and "many/most RFC authors will start using the canonical format 
> for Internet Draft development anyway, so the RFC Editor will 
> still get time savings". Arguments in favor of the second would 
> be "the RFC Editor does not need to convert any Internet Draft 
> before editing, and thus time will be saved and errors will be 
> avoided" and "there will be less surprise during AUTH48".
I would not call the first option above a requirement.  An obvious point
of sanity, yes, but does the draft really call for that level of detail
around what will be allowed?  I would prefer that not be the case, but
I'm open to input.

Of course the RFC Editor would prefer to work with a single Submission
format.  As others on this thread have pointed out, it would make many
things more efficient for the editors and possibly for authors as well.
 However, based on my discussions with the Stream Managers and other
advisers, I do not believe that is something I can reasonably require at
this time.  I will encourage it, but I am not ready to require it.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list