Re: [Gendispatch] Updating the IETF Discussion List Charter (was: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-eggert-bcp45bis-02.txt)

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I would phrase it  a little differently.   If you use a working template 
using a preparation form you are comfortable with, it works pretty 
well.  Yes, there are some hoops to jump through. For example, we need 
the copyright grant.

If you like Markdown, use that template.  If you are Joe Touch and like 
Word, use that template.    If you are new to this, talk to someone.  
(While I can't point people who ask me to Markdown templates, I can and 
will point them to the people who can and will help.)

Yours,

Joel

On 6/26/2022 1:17 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I agree that xml2rfc is quite clunky. My experience is that if you use 
> Markdown, especially with MTs templates, it's generally quite easy.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 9:07 AM Keith Moore 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>     On 6/26/22 11:53, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>     Maybe
>>>     because I-Ds are too much work, maybe also because they look too much
>>>     like RFCs and have so many rules enforced on them these days.  I-Ds were
>>>     not originally intended to be that much work; we've layered on more and
>>>     more formal requirements and expectations over the years.
>>     This is an interesting point, because, no, I-Ds are not a lot of work
>>     and do not have rules enforced on them.
>>
>>     The rules and the nit-checker that points many of them out are for
>>     when the I-D goes to the IESG, looking for approval to be published as
>>     an RFC.  But just to post an individual Internet draft?  Just knock up
>>     a text file in the approximate format, taking an existing one as an
>>     example, give it a name that begins "draft-moore-" and ends with
>>     "-00", and post it.  The rules at this stage are**very**  few.
>>
>>     Maybe part of the problem is that that's not clear, that because of
>>     the rules that are applied at the latter stages we have fostered a
>>     skewed perception of what's required just to post an initial idea.  We
>>     should definitely fix that, if so.
>
>     Well, there's clearly some sort of disconnect here, because every
>     I-D I've submitted for the past decade or more has required hours
>     of fiddling with xml with arbitrary rules, and boilerplate with
>     arcane rules, and responding to meaningless error messages,
>     usually with a deadline looming, iterating until a miracle happens
>     and the document is actually accepted.   I realize that it's not
>     strictly necessary to write I-Ds using xml2rfc but I've been of
>     the impression that the same rules are enforced either way.   So
>     maybe this is a tools problem or a web site problem rather than a
>     rules problem, but I think there's some sort of problem there.
>
>     Keith
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Gendispatch mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>
>