A web based submission model would be better - it could actually step the submitter through the template sections and give them guidance on the text. Hell readability tools are available from any of the online library tool sources so this is not an issue either. The millstone here is that the IETF refuses to get out of its own way and in mandating paper-text only filings. This is the problem and not the solution and the sooner the IETF gets past that and moves on to the world of on-line collaborative systems as the basis of its vetting pools, well gee... Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 9:58 AM Subject: Re: RFC Editor Function SOW Review > Given the number of different working groups that have produced > diffiult to read documents for RFC publication, > the indications are that we are missing some necessary ingredient for > achieving this within the working group process. > I do not know if we lack the skills, incentives, or resources, but > history indicates that we frequently have produced documents that > still need significant editing. > While having a goal of improving this makes good sense, I think we > need to work from the WG end, not the editor end. Until we are > producing better results, we can not cut down on the editing process. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > At 08:04 PM 7/22/2006, Dave Crocker wrote: > >What I HAVE said is that the process of getting and demonstrating sufficient > >community support should include requiring acceptable writing of the > >specifications. If an effort is not able to recruit sufficient resources for > >that task, then I frankly question whether it has sufficient market "pull" to > >succeed. > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf