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

Stewart Bryant stbryant at cisco.com
Fri Oct 31 06:52:14 PDT 2014

On 31/10/2014 12:16, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Stewart Bryant <stbryant at cisco.com> wrote:
>> Having read this thread and looked at the proposals, none of which are mainstream, I wonder if I am unique in the IETF in thinking that I really don't want to run a parallel software engineering effort in order to write an I-D, I but instead just want to install some maintained package which is mainstream in the tools chain and type?
> You are clearly not unique.   However, I doubt that there is any meaningful consensus the IETF as a whole could reach, so opening it up to a straw poll seems not to be a sensible plan.   I am sure there is a strong constituency for using MS Word as the tool of choice.   There may be some second contender that would be more popular than xml2rfc, I don't know.   But I don't think there is a single contender that could raise a plurality of support.   xml2rfc is Solomon's choice.   And it doesn't suck.   So it seems expedient to go with it.

xml2rfc is fine, particularly the maintained web tool, but that is not a composition tool, but you do not type plain text into it to convert your thoughts into something that will become an RFC.

Whether or not the IETF as a whole can reach a consensus I don't know, but I think the state of the composition tools does deserve some plenary level discussion to properly understand the degree of concern amongst the  author community and see if there is any consensus in any of its dimensions. Composition is something that currently impacts the 2000 members the IETF who are writing the documents that we are "in business" to deliver, so making some improvement on the current lamentable situation should be regarded as a P1 issue.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list