Subject: RE: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:49:22 +0100

W.r.t.
> > - We can say that it's time to require XML2RFC for all drafts.
> 
> there is a variant of this that i think i like:
> 
> do not impose this switch onto those submitting, but change 
> the formatting language used by the rfc editor to be xml2rfc.
> 
> so, submissions in xml2rfc are highly welcome, but pure text is still 
> welcome, with hand-conversion by the editor staff.

I appreciate that we (IETF) try to not force everybody into using the same
tool. It probably is a productivity booster for many authors if they can
continue to work with the tools they normally use in daytime job or have
become used/accustomed to over the years.

At the other hand, I would want everybody to realize that if we say:

   ..., but pure text is still welcome, with hand-conversion
   by the editor staff.

that that means a SERIOUS cost. You did all see the numbers at the
last Plenary, where (iirc) the rough number for RFC-editor is 1 million
dollars for the coming year. The more "hand-conversion" work we impose
on the RFC-Editor, the more that it will cost us (IETF).

So I feel that there is a justified "pressure" for authors to seriously
consider to use the tools we (as IETF) choose to focus on.

just my 2 cents.
Bert

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:13:14 -0800

> that that means a SERIOUS cost. 

right.  that is why we should have moved to an automated submission process 
long ago.

the issue, now, is transition.  we need to make the change in a way that 
does not impose traumatic effect on existing practise.  therefore we have to 
continue to accept free-text drafts.

at some point, in the future, we can consider ending this practise.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>