IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for Comment: "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development"

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Tue, 05 March 2013 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989FF11E80A4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:33:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qm8DyV+bStU6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:33:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls5.std.com [192.74.137.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1968221F85FD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:33:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (root@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r25IWAgQ010492 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 13:32:12 -0500
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id r25IWA4I3013742 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 13:32:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id r25IWA2a2823750; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 13:32:10 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 13:32:10 -0500
Message-Id: <201303051832.r25IWA2a2823750@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <02cb01ce198b$952b1420$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> (daedulus@btconnect.com)
Subject: Re: Call for Comment: "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development"
References: <20130301194412.73827.qmail@joyce.lan><20130304234853.066BE1A5F4@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <20130305003036.GW16281@mx1.yitter.info> <02cb01ce198b$952b1420$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:33:10 -0000

Wouldn't it suffice to say "The IETF should not use a document format
if it is substantially bulkier than an alternative format that
satisfies substantially similar goals." and leave the details to the
RFC Editor?

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email