- 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.
Ietf mailing list