--On Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:14 AM -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
2.2. Required sections - all I-Ds
...
List of authors/editors
There should not be more than 5 authors/editors (see
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html)
...
And note that the normative "should" language in the
Checklist, here, might be
considered stronger than what is actually said in the RFC
Editor's policy
document. (One can debate this, but then, that debate is
exactly what we ought
to have, based on hard data like this. My own opinion is that
the "should" is
appropriate here, in terms of actual practice, and it's long
been what I advise folk writing drafts.)
And this is precisely one of the examples to which I was
referring, because, in exceptional circumstances, the RFC Editor
has been willing to negotiate that limit. However, if my memory
is correct, the "nits" checker, which draws its authority from
the Checklist, gets sufficiently annoyed about more than five
authors to prevent posting of I-Ds.
1. Introduction
...
As a suggestion for productivity improvement, it is strongly
RECOMMENDED to use XML2RFC
The capitalization appears intended to offer essentially
normative guidance but,
of course, that's probably not what is meant.
And, the last I checked, there were MSWord tools that are
considered as productive as xml2rfc (even if they are not to the
personal taste of some of us).
...
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf