[rfc-i] draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-02 composition tools

Stewart Bryant stbryant at cisco.com
Thu Oct 30 06:53:00 PDT 2014

On 29/10/2014 21:09, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 10/29/2014 4:56 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> I completely support this effort, it is long overdue.
> +1
>> However I have concerns that there is insufficient priority given to
>> input composition tools.
> +1
> ...
>> To produce a suitable system will likely require IETF funding.
> +1, if we continue to believe that commercial tools are insufficient.
I would be fine with a recommended commercial tool set.

I just want to think protocol and type text. I don't want to
use a system as complex as the protocol I am describing
to describe the protocol.

>> In my
>> view this would be money well spent.
> -1.
> I continue to fail to see why the needs of the IETF are so unique,
> compared to other standards orgs, that we need all this complexity and
> cost vs. commercial tools to generate PDF.
I am not sure what tool chain you are proposing Joe, but provided
it allows me to think protocol and type text I would be fine
with it. My assumption was that such an approach was out of scope.

Most other SDOs use MS Word. I have had that program
on every professional computer I have used since 1996 and I suspect
that those that have not are in the minority. Going that way would
suit me just fine.

What I don't want to do is to spend time thinking about and constantly
prodding some strange custom set of composition tools when I am paid
to think about protocols.
> I've continued to hear about cases where rare individuals want automated
> access to structured information inside these docs, but these have
> failed (IMO) to justify a real need (vs academic exercise), especially
> compared to the impact on the authoring community.
I agree.

- Stewart
> Joe
> .

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list