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

Stewart Bryant stbryant at cisco.com
Thu Oct 30 07:19:55 PDT 2014

On 30/10/2014 14:10, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2014, at 14:53, Stewart Bryant <stbryant at cisco.com> wrote:
>> MS Word
> One thing that I have learned in a couple of decades contributing to the IETF is that there is considerable diversity in preference for tools.
> Having edited a 168-page RFC using MS-Word, because that was the preference of some of the other 15 authors of that RFC, I can tell you that I am not ready to ever repeat that experience.
> Apart from a composition tool being good for the initial brain dump, it also needs to be good for getting a correct final result.  With several authors collaborating.  With parts of the document being automatically generated and/or checked.
> My points here:
> — standardizing on one composition tool is not going to work;
> — standardizing on one composition tool that doesn’t support modern workflows for collaboration on and controlled evolution of documents is going to work even less.
> W3C and IETF got it right to put the lean waist on the format, not on the tool.
> (That doesn’t mean that we don’t need tools.)
> Grüße, Carsten
> .
To be clear, the only way I would accept MS word as a reasonable 
approach was if there was no post editing process, i.e. you type into a 
template and ship what you get when you stop typing.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list