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

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Fri Oct 31 15:00:13 PDT 2014

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
<rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> On 10/31/14 10:01 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> Oh - that's *completely* reasonable.  I'm CC'ing the RSOC for us to
>>  discuss this.  Assuming everyone else thinks it's a good idea, we
>> can ask the IAOC to see if they can negotiate something.
> I would very much support doing this, though the identity management
> person in me is entirely uncertain how we would accomplish such a
> thing.  The IETF doesn't have members as such, so how would a vendor
> be able to provide a limited license or discount to participants?

Perhaps a "site" license for the IETF and then let the "officers" of
the IETF (ADs, WG chairs, shepherds), decide who gets to use it, with
some "only for I-Ds" caveat.  It's worth asking.  Worst-case we get a

Mind you, I'd like this, but I don't think it's necessary.  I've been
using xml2rfc pretty much since it first appeared on the scene.  I'm
happy with it, and clearly it works for us.  And there are a variety
of composition tools options _now_ -- if that's the sticking point for
anyone, then *please* try one of the tools listed.

I'd love to see a round-up of comments about the composition tools
that are available now.  Who doesn't like any of them, and why?

Joe Touch,

We know your preferences.  But I don't know if you've tried these
other options, and if you would just try some of them, you'd be adding
something new, even if you still preferred Word in the end.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list