[rfc-i] Keeping some of the PIs from v2 in v3, but as an actual part of the grammar

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Mar 18 10:56:07 PDT 2014

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Sullivan
<ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 01:36:44PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> XML2RFC. But providing a TOC should not be a choice in an ID or RFC, it
>> should be a requirement.
> Indeed, the last draft from the RFD Editor said that the TOC is
> required, so I don't see any reason to include such a mechanism in
> that case.  (I do think a TOC for a 2 page document, plus boilerplate,
> is ridiculous, but I gather I am in the minority.)

I find a ToC on short docs obnoxious.  If the RFC-Editor wants it
always, so be it for RFCs, but for my I-Ds, I should get to leave them
out as long as I can.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list