On 2008-01-17 09:30, Frank Ellermann wrote: > The IESG wrote: > >> Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of >> this mechanism? > > Yes and yes. I'm biased, having helped to start this experiment, but my only criticism is that we haven't made enough use of it (i.e. there are a number of IETF procedural documents that are ripe for republishing as IONs). So, +1 for yes and yes. > I like them even better if they are published > in a plain text format similar to Internet-Drafts. The IETF > tool "rfcmarkup" can produce sound HTML and diffs for I-Ds. There are two formats allowed for IONS - html and plain text (but not both for the same document). However, almost all of those published so far previously existed as xml2rfc source, so they've been IONized and htmlized using xml2rfc. If you value the hyperlinks (which I do, especially in a case like http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-procdocs.html), it seems more logical to use xml2rfc than to have rfcmarkup guess the links. In the interests of science, I processed ion-procdocs through xml2rfc to plain text. The result is at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/ion-procdocs.txt (There is one very minor formatting glitch that I didn't debug.) Then I processed the txt through rfcmarkup: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/ion-procdocs-rfcmarkup.htm It would be interesting to know which of the above three versions people prefer. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf