[rfc-i] Why should the RFC Style Guide be an RFC?

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Mar 12 01:57:15 PDT 2014

On 2014-03-12 09:35, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2014/03/12 16:20, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2014-03-12 01:05, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> Greetings again. The RFC Style Guide is in IETF Last Call, and this is
>>> a very good time to ask: why should this be an RFC at all? In the
>>> introduction to the current draft, it says:
>>> ...
>> I believe that publishing the style guide as RFC is exactly the right
>> thing to do. When we can't express the RFC style as RFC, we have a
>> problem.
> This is a valid point. However, I'm very much on Paul's side, because
> everybody having to look in two different places and putting pieces
> together is useless work.

The RFC Style doesn't change quickly at all. So there should be no 
reason to have to look into two places.

>> With respect to updates: RFCs can be revised. There's no reason why the
>> situation needs to be as bad as before :-).
> We can improve on what was before, but I'd prefer the RFC editor
> spending cycles and money on things that matter to the Internet, rather
> than on RFCs about how to write RFCs.

There is a difference between updating an RFC and a Web Page, but I 
believe it's not as big as you make it.

The advantage of having an RFC and updating it through the usual ID 
process is that we get the same benefits as for regular RFCs, namely review.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list