Re: Call for Comment: "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Call for Comment: "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development"
From: worley@xxxxxxxxxxx (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 13:32:10 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-to: ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <02cb01ce198b$952b1420$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> (daedulus@btconnect.com)

Wouldn't it suffice to say "The IETF should not use a document format
if it is substantially bulkier than an alternative format that
satisfies substantially similar goals." and leave the details to the
RFC Editor?

Dale

References:
- Re: Call for Comment: "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development"
  - From: John Levine
- Re: Call for Comment: "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development"
  - From: Martin Rex
- Re: Call for Comment: "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development"
  - From: Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Call for Comment: "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development"
  - From: t.p.

Prev by Date: Re: Nomcom Reports
Next by Date: Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Previous by thread: Re: Call for Comment: "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development"
Next by thread: Re: Call for Comment: "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [IETF Annoucements] [IETF] [IP Storage] [Yosemite News] [Linux SCTP] [Linux Newbies] [Fedora Users]