Subject: RFC format - time for an update?

From: Adrien de Croy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:30:42 +1300

Hi all

I'm sure this is probably the wrong list to send this to, so if someone 
could point me to the correct place, it would be appreciated.

I've had the feeling for a while that the restrictions on formatting of 
RFCs and I-Ds (in terms of layout, columns, lines etc) place serious 
limitations on the ability of authors to adequately specify designs.

For instance the inability to show images supporting concepts that can't 
be done in ascii-art and 76 columns.

Specifications after all are intended to convey information to enable 
interoperable implementations.  Therefore interop may suffer as a result 
of inability to adequately specify.

Is it therefore time for a change, maybe to drag the format out of the 
70's (or whenever it was solidified)?

Most other standards bodies seem to have adopted a rich text format.

Regards

Adrien

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:57:03 +0100

TL;DR answer: no.

Long answer: There is a raging debate about this about once a year, often on the main IETF mailing list, making that unusable for about two weeks in a row.  

Each time, the result is to stick with the RFC format.

> Most other standards bodies seem to have adopted a rich text format.

Yes.  We are different.
(In many ways, not just this one, but definitely in this one.)

Most definitely don't debate it here.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Adrien de Croy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:11:36 +1300

ok thanks

nice to know I'm not alone

Regards

Adrien

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:16:58 +0000

> nice to know I'm not alone
I will forward your messages to the newly hired RFC Series Editor, who 
is the right person to talk to about this kind of stuff.
>> Long answer: There is a raging debate about this about once a year, 
>> often on the main IETF mailing list, making that unusable for about 
>> two weeks in a row.
>>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:07:36 +0100

> could point me to the correct place, it would be appreciated.

[email-masked]

> limitations on the ability of authors to adequately specify designs.

...Lack of semantics. Pagination. Reflow. 18N, at least for contact 
information and examples.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:57:40 +0900

There's also a list for people interested in the work of the RFC Editor. 
Below are the relevant list headers. There's discussion about this topic 
on that list once in a while, too.

Regards,   Martin.

List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions."
	<rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>