Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: [your premise snipped ;-] > tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official > format for RFC, even now after six years? It's an excellent tool to create real drafts and RfCs. For "real" read text/plain us-ascii in the format defined elsewhere (2223bis among others). It's not the only available tool. Bruce is the maintainer of the nroff tools, and somebody else offers MS word tools. The tools team apparently adopted RfC 2629 as the primary format for the automatical handling of submissions, and one of the "document set" drafts also builds on this format. Just let it be, eventually it will be as you want it. Numerous tools like rfcmarkup still build on the "real" format, and nothing's wrong with that. With xml2rfc you can now also create unpaginated output, nice for creating / posting a quick diff. That feature was added this year, it's still a living project, last DTD updates also this year. The EULA boilerplates (= 78/79) are also still a moving target (unfortunately). This is all not yet ready to be cast in stone. Only the general direction is IMHO more or less clear. Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf