There are two versions of ID-nits that should be used:
1) one when you're working on getting the words right, and
2) one when you're working on getting the formatting right.
#1 should be used when you're at the beginning of the lifecycle. The
requirements for it *should* *be* *minimal*.
#2 should be used when you're getting close to submitting the document
to the IESG for further processing. That's when the majority of those
picky things should be highlighted.
Perhaps the I-D uploader can ask which type of document this is, and act
accordingly. For *-00 and *-01 files, it could even *assume* that it's a
#1-style document.
Tony Hansen
tony@xxxxxxx
On 3/20/2010 6:55 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
+1
Bob Braden
(PS: The IESG has chosen to impose the RFC editing rules on all Internet
Drafts. That always seemed counter-productive to me. I am not sure I
would characterize the problem as "serious", but it does seem t o warp
common sense for the sake of bureaucratic uniformity.)
In my view, we have an actual serious problem in that there is an
increasingly high barrier to I-D submission because idnits has a large
number of rules, nearly all of which are about formatting. I don't
believe that authors of documents or WG-appointed editors ought to
have to worry terribly much about that, except maybe near the time
when the document is ready for publication. It's absurd, given the
tools available, that document authors need to worry as much about
line lengths and number of pages (!) in initial submissions as they
need to worry about completeness and clarity of their text.
A
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf