[rfc-i] Number of submission formats

[rse at rfc-editor.org (Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor))]

On 1/18/13 2:00 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir at checkpoint.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
>> or c) you want the reflow-able html to be generated, like so:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-williams-websec-session-continue-prob-00.html
> or d) you want to see the bloody source for whatever reason.
>
>>> I can't imagine the RFC-Editor being happy to work with the formatted
>>> .txt only as an input.  Say I edited an I-D that way, formatting and
>>> paginating by hand (don't laugh, I used to, though I had a script to
>>> do the pagination)?
>> They'll take just the txt version, although they'll grumble. RFC 4478 had no nroff or xml source.
> !
>
>> Currently, Internet Drafts look very similar to RFCs. I think we'll want to keep that similarity.
> +1
>
> One set of tools for formatting I-Ds and RFCs seems a lot better than
> two distinct sets of tools.  This is an issue that's been lingering,
> that we've not yet resolved.  It's entirely possible that we might end
> up wanting two sets of tools, though I haven't yet seen a single
> reason why we might.  E.g., we might want different Canonical output
> formats for RFCs and I-Ds, but, aside from differences in boilerplate,
> why would we?!
Speaking as an individual, I agree that diverging in any major way
between the format for I-Ds and the format for RFCs would be a bad
thing.  I don't know of anyone who disagrees with that statement.

Speaking as RSE, I-Ds are outside of my purview until they are submitted
for publication.  I can suggest, but I cannot make requirements for what
happens with the I-D.  That said, the Stream Managers and I are very
aware of the symbiosis between I-Ds and RFCs and will endeavor not to
break it.  If something I propose looks to fold, spindle, or mutilate
that symbiosis, I have every confidence that the community and the
Stream Managers will let me know, at which point we can discuss whether
the I-D should be changed (their responsibility) or the RFC process
should be changed (my responsibility).

-Heather