Just as a practical matter from recent experience.
Usually, an RFC originates as an IESG approved I-D.
Usually, you don't submit nroff for an I-D.
The RFC editor never asks if you have nroff
The RFC editor sometimes forgets when you offer it.
So, even if you have nroff source, you may have to work
to get it to the right folks at the right time.
Of course a big problem is the decreasing number of
IETF people who know nroff, and even fewer that are fluent,
and even fewer who would, if they had a choice, choose it.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 8:24 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: rfc publication suggestions
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
...
The current RFC publication process has some astonishing
delays apparently
due to the process including a conversion of the source text to
nroff. Eliminating that step, or at least automating its
equivalent, could
only help.
...
I don't understand that statement.
Has the RFC editor stopped accepting nroff?
Has the old tool that generates nroff from simple ASCII been lost?
Unless things have changed in unlikely and unannounced ways, that
people either don't read RFC 2223 or refuse to submit nroff suggests
something about some of the nominal issues, including whether the
delays matter to authors and whether authors would use a
better format.
No rocket science (but maybe some patience) is required to
write nroff.
Thanks to groff, typesetting nroff has become free.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
-
This message was passed through ietf+censored(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no, which
is a sublist of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed.
Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.