[TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Fwd: RFC format evolution and IETF documents

Just in case you do not read the ietf-announce mail list ...

> From: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
> Date: January 27, 2016 10:31:43 AM EST
> To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> Cc: "Heather Flanagan \(RFC Series Editor\)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
> Subject: RFC format evolution and IETF documents
> Reply-To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, "Heather Flanagan \(RFC Series Editor\)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
> 
> 
> For background, the RFC Editor and the IAB have been
> working on the evolution  of the RFC format. The IAB
> will be sending a number of documents soon out
> for review. At the same time, the tools team have
> been working on what the new format requires
> from the tools. Both the documents and the tools
> requirements are available from the reading list
> below.
> 
> The IESG has discussed what this all means for
> the IETF documents. The evolution is important
> for the IETF as well, and we look forward to
> being able to use possibilities in the new format.
> 
> The IESG wanted to offer five points:
> 
> 1. Please review the documents and send
> feedback to the rfc-interest list at
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> or the authors.
> 
> 2. We would like to see the new format be
> available as the base format for Internet
> Drafts as well, supported by the relevant
> tools, and usable by each of the RFC
> streams as needed. Each stream may
> of course have a policy on what content or
> format features they prefer.
> 
> 3. We expect the RFC Editor, the IAB, and
> the tools team (incl. IAOC support) to make
> the above possible.
> 
> 4. From an IETF stream perspective, we are
> in eager waiting mode. Once the format
> definitions and tools are in place, we
> will (among others) want to try the
> new possibilities in IETF stream
> documents. From a careful engineering
> stand point we would like to start
> small, and gather experience on
> using the new format and tools. There
> will be implications on how we review
> documents, for instance.
> 
> 5. Existing I-D submission using text
> only will likely stay on for a long time
> if not indefinitely, so old methods can
> also be used as needed or desired.
> 
> Comments appreciated, as always.
> 
> Jari Arkko for the IESG
> 
> Reading list:
> 
> 1. The big picture
> 
> - - Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework",
>   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc-framework/
> 
> 2. The underlying vocabulary
> 
> - - Hoffman, P., "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary",
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-xml2rfc/
> 
> 3. The outputs
> 
> - - Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, "HyperText Markup
>   Language Request For Comments Format”,
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-html-rfc/
> 
> - - Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain Text RFCs”,
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc-plaintext/
> 
> - - Hansen, T., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF for
>   an RFC Series Output Document Format”,
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hansen-rfc-use-of-pdf/
>   Note that the filename may change to an IAB document soon.
> 
> - - Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC",
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-svg-rfc/
> 
> 4. Generalized requirements
> 
> - - Flanagan, H., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs",
>   https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-rfc-nonascii-00.pdf
> 
> - - Flanagan, H., “CSS Requirements for RFCs”,
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc-css/
> 
> 5. Workflow and tools (note that the examples draft will
>   not become an RFC, but is necessary for the project)
> 
> - - Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, "RFC v3 Prep Tool Description",
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfcv3-preptool/
> 
> - - Hoffman, P. and T. Hansen, "Examples of the ‘XML2RFC'
>   Version 2 and 3 Vocabularies”,
>   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-rfcexamples/
> 
> 6. The Statements of Work
> 
> - - http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/rfced/