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

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Mar 18 10:59:01 PDT 2014

On Mar 18, 2014, at 10:51 AM, 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

Picking on you, just because I can. Just because the last draft says that the TOC is required, doesn't mean that it is. I pointed this out a week ago in my comments on that draft. For a recent example, see RFC 7154.

--Paul Hoffman

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list