Lars> since you asked: I have absolutely no problems with xml2rfc. I find that xml2rfc takes too much control over the boilerplate and the references to be a really useful tool. I dropped it after one attempt. However, many of my colleagues use it, and as a result I've gotten many questions of the form "what do I have to do to make xml2rfc produce output that will pass idnits?". I can't tell them "just put in the following boilerplate", instead I've had to figure out the right value of the "ipr" variable. (BTW, no one ever cares what the boilerplate actually says, just whether it will pass idnits; xml2rfc really encourages folks to ignore the semantics of the boilerplate.) Joel> One large draft I was working on was originally written using WORD. I Joel> found it extremely difficult to work with (although I have a current Joel> version of Word available at all times.) Instead, working with Joel> another author we converted the document to XML for XML2RFC. Hey, I've converted from both Word and XML to nroff; that way I don't get any surprises ;-) OTOH, I have to admit that nroff was a bit challenging when I moved from Solaris to Linux. Joel> I have seen some folks arguing that we should make XML2RFC normative Joel> and mandatory. Of course, in the IETF it is very common for folks to think that their personal preferences are objectively superior. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf