[rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] Recommendation 9 from Results and analysis of the survey of I-D authors on formats and tools

Michael Richardson mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Sat Feb 6 18:07:37 PST 2021


Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf at gmail.com> wrote:
    > mmark is much more flexible on what one can include.

    > https://mmark.miek.nl/

That actually is less helpful, if you haven't uploaded all the required files
to the DT.

The CELLAR WG, of which I'm co-chair, uses mmark, btw.
Our use is probably overly complicated, but I didn't set it up :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20210206/bbaa5e02/attachment.asc>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list