Re: document writing/editing tools used by IETF

Ladislav Lhotka <> Fri, 26 February 2021 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 397143A0E2A for <>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:05:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PjcuUqT9dWky for <>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA9F23A0CBB for <>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 00:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:a88f:7eff:fed2:45f8] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:a88f:7eff:fed2:45f8]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B92C513FF56; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:05:40 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=default; t=1614326740; bh=KMKPClsTJQ86OAkbhlc2Up/Pnh62ueWM7qao0/fBJLw=; h=To:From:Date; b=s3nr1vYCo/YApGx7htCjBzLY1L+LAj+pUjC2E9HhShLHDdxgjLxSDDDaiDM5RH/vC EZU60Z+6l1EzQJs3HLx9XbPJdZxGJyDe4vvWK73Mk7mLfDG26+VncQitksK2pIK+1Z PTxTWLjSJZ4MJoBFp5gp1kWq0ecmu5ea7sc5bx5o=
To: Carsten Bormann <>, Larry Masinter <>
Cc: Keith Moore <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB057322BA95B1B44D4175356BC29E9@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <001d01d70be3$ff0972d0$fd1c5870$> <>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Subject: Re: document writing/editing tools used by IETF
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:05:40 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 08:06:03 -0000

On 26. 02. 21 8:36, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2021-02-26, at 03:06, Larry Masinter <> wrote:
>> For collaboration, there's a generation of collaborative tools from Google Docs to Dropbox and Microsoft tools that are a lot better than GitHub for collaboration.
> I’m sorry, Larry, you’d have to have a very weird sense of “better” to believe that.
> I have had extensive exposure to the MS-Word type of “collaboration” (I was the editor of RFC 3095 which was done in MS-Word, with 16 collaborators).  The English language does not have words to describe that experience.


For me, one of the greatest virtues of the IETF work style has always
been that I wasn't forced to use MS Office (or similar software, which
is often even worse).


> For hacking out a quick draft, shared editors like Google Docs are fine (we mostly use hedgedoc née codimd née hackmd for that, and it sure is fun).  For structured, controlled collaboration in a large team, nothing beats VCS systems like git, and github has a lot of mindshare in the tools around that process (issue tracking etc.).  
> It is simply hilarious to imagine the QUIC or HTTPBIS WGs typing away at a shared Google doc.  That’s not how it works.  Specs are code, and there is a good reason why creating good documents (like the core ones of the above WGs) benefits from experience in collaborating on code.
> Grüße, Carsten

Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67