[Tools-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-tools-draft-submission-08.txt

Sorry for the late comments, but it seems another round is in process 
anyway...apologies for any duplicates.

Having given this a couple reads, most of my concerns were addressed.  
Compression is IMO a silly feature, but its implementation is optional, 
so that's OK. (And I wonder if HTTP 1.1 doesn't support compressed POSTs.)

I  still wonder if anyone has done a survey (formal or anecdotal 
guesstimate) to determine what format drafts are created in (i.e. source 
format) these days. Even though the RFC Editors reportedly* don't use  
nroff/troff any more, it seems quite popular, and justifiably 
preferred** by some users who've tried both.  I suppose they can 
continue to submit drafts the old way, if they're just a vocal small 
minority.

*http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/msg00280.html
**http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss/current/msg00301.html

Does the draft take into account that it is probably much easier for the 
Secretariat to convert a document from one format to another (especially 
given appropriate instructions or better yet standard procedure 
regarding use of existing tools) than it is to compare two documents to 
confirm that they are not substantially different?  Or am I mistaken?

Should one of the validation steps be approval (a good score from) an 
anti-spam system such as SpamAssassin?  I guess this can be a feature 
added later if it turns out it's needed.  I'd bet it will be.

--
Matthew

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
Tools-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss