W.r.t. > > - We can say that it's time to require XML2RFC for all drafts. > > there is a variant of this that i think i like: > > do not impose this switch onto those submitting, but change > the formatting language used by the rfc editor to be xml2rfc. > > so, submissions in xml2rfc are highly welcome, but pure text is still > welcome, with hand-conversion by the editor staff. I appreciate that we (IETF) try to not force everybody into using the same tool. It probably is a productivity booster for many authors if they can continue to work with the tools they normally use in daytime job or have become used/accustomed to over the years. At the other hand, I would want everybody to realize that if we say: ..., but pure text is still welcome, with hand-conversion by the editor staff. that that means a SERIOUS cost. You did all see the numbers at the last Plenary, where (iirc) the rough number for RFC-editor is 1 million dollars for the coming year. The more "hand-conversion" work we impose on the RFC-Editor, the more that it will cost us (IETF). So I feel that there is a justified "pressure" for authors to seriously consider to use the tools we (as IETF) choose to focus on. just my 2 cents. Bert _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf