How is this possible? AFAIK, XML source for most published RFCs
has never been created. Significant content changes do happen
during the RFC editorial process, so the authenticity of any
XML sources you may have on hand is, to put it mildly, suspect.
Hence the desire to have the RFC Editor use xml2rfc, rather than nroff.
Were there still regular use of nroff in the broad community, there might be
an argument in favor of continuing to have it as the internal representation
of authoritative rfc text.
But there isn't. Whereas xml2rfc has been gaining broad (and enthusiastic)
adoption.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf