Hi - There's been an awful lot of traffic on this subject, both this time around and in the perpetual past. My $0.02 is that we're a standards body and we shouldn't invent a new document profile/standard. That's not our business, so we should steal code. We have a home-grown effort done by a few people since 1998, which has been doing fairly well. That's a self-contained body of work, which could easily be supplemented by a working group effort to evolve the specs. If we're going to be NIH, that seems like the logical option to consider. If we don't do that, we should adopt what seems to work well for others. W3C standards look great, they've thought hard about the document format, and that's the business they're in. If we're going to last call something, I think it should be a choice from a list of existing bodies of work: w3c, xml2rfc, or any of the other document-production systems (OASIS, Docbook, ITU, OSI, or whatever you want). I'm very partial to xml2rfc, but I also see a lot of power in a joint w3c/ietf spec. That will get you tools pretty quick. If the IESG or the IAB recommended one path to take, a working group could pretty quickly do any necessary tweaks (e.g., mapping to 2629 or 2629bis). Carl _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf