> Date: 2005-03-02 16:37 > From: Alia Atlas <aatlas@xxxxxxxxx>
> One thing that I would have found very useful when I first starting writing
> drafts would be a pointer to tools to actually format documents
> appropriately.
Me too. RFC 2223 helped a little, but it is rather vague and incomplete.
I never even found RFC 2223. I saw the guidelines on the IETF web-site instead.
> This could be a pointer to the xml2rfc information (with > associated RFC),
I looked at those, but found XML to be less of a tool than a barricade.
Which is a clear indication that authors have different approaches & opinions. I'd been using nroff for a while, with some fix-up scripts that I'd been given. I found the XML tools to be very useful (builds tables of contents, prevents figures from being broken between pages, etc.). There was a brief learning curve.
Finding RFC 2223 insufficient, I wrote a set of macros and related tools. See draft-lilly-using-troff and related discussions on the RFC-interest mailing list ( http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/ ).
Maybe this could be pointed to as well?
> With the exception of an informative reference to RFC 2629, I'm not sure > this is something that can be in the guidelines, but it could certainly be > on the web-page.
That would depend on the status of the document. If it's to become an RFC, then references to drafts can be only as a "work in progress" and references to web sites other than IETF/IANA/RFC-EDITOR are strongly discouraged. If it's just another random document, anything goes.
There's got to be a reasonable way to say "this tool is (as of pub date) easily available on the web by the name of xml2rfc". Also, doesn't the RFC Editor use it as well?
Alia
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf