> --> The thing I'd like to have that isn't already there is a way to get > --> the xml2rfc sources the RFC editor used back for comparison purposes. > What would be useful - in even more than this context - > would be if there was a peer-level directory where source for > all RFCs would be kept adjacent to the RFCs derived from them. Quite true. But as long as the RFC Editor finds it necessary to use a multi-stage process to produce RFCs with hand tweaking of the output at different stages, I doubt that they will be willing to do this because the input document will not in fact reproduce what's in the RFC. This is why tool improvement to eliminate the need for hand tweaking is so important. But in the meantime, I would hope the RFC Editor would be willing to hand back the xml2rfc source to the author. It's a stopgap, but a useful stopgap. I don't know what needs to be done to make xml2rfc better, but I sure wish the RFC Editor would spend whatever time it takes with the folks who work on xml2rfc to accomplish this. > In addition to giving us some concrete evidence of how > many RFCs use each source format, it would greatly simplify > the process of writing new drafts... Sure - a central repository makes it easy for anyone to come along and produce a document revision. Depending on authors preserving input sources is not nearly as flexible. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf