[rfc-i] draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-02 composition tools

[dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)]

On 11/4/2014 7:19 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Well we can have more than one. My point is that we need a complete
>> toolchain that the IETF will stand by.
> 
> I don't understand this argument, since we don't have one now and as
> far as I can tell, never had one in the past.


In the distant past, the RFC 'language' was simple enough that it didn't
really need a tool other than any random text editor.

As the complexity of RFC encoding has increased, so has the need for
tools.  I don't know whether IETF staff maintained an nroff code base,
but I guarantee that they guaranteed they maintained access to the
running tool.

And while the IETF-related staff might not have maintained a core set of
those tools, there was certainly community discussion and documentation
about tools that could be used.  (The latest round of Word discussions,
which tests existing documentation for using it, shows an example of
'support' without having an in-house copy.)

xml2rfc resulted in a specialized tool with grass-roots development,
which has moved into IETF responsibility.

So it's not unreasonable to flesh out the support capabilities more
completely.  After all, there are plenty of examples of later failures
to process data, for lack of the necessary support tools.

That said, the idea of on-going paymen -- as opposed to one-time
development fees that produce open sourced code -- for those tools seems
antithetical to the open, inclusive goals of the IETF.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net