[rfc-i] Call for Review of draft-iab-styleguide-01.txt, "RFC Style Guide"

SM sm at resistor.net
Tue Mar 4 11:06:50 PST 2014

Hi Abdussalam,
At 09:16 04-03-2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>The most important comment for me as start message is that the 1st 
>April RFC should be categorised different than IETF standards. IMHO, 
>The past RFC style is not a reasonable style of the world or the 
>future best practices. In considering our standards business and our 
>documents reputation, we should not make jokes with our followers 
>only if we are sure all like such jokes.
>I don't want to stop that Style type, but it should be easily 
>discriminated by readers/users from other real work/business.

The special RFCs are not part of the IETF Stream and they are not an 
IETF standard in any way.  I agree that some of these RFCs might be 
difficult for some readers to understand.  I don't think that a 
decision about categorizing RFCs should be part of the discussion 
about RFC Style.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list