Hi -
There's been an awful lot of traffic on this subject, both this time
around and in the perpetual past. My $0.02 is that we're a standards
body and we shouldn't invent a new document profile/standard. That's
not our business, so we should steal code.
We have a home-grown effort done by a few people since 1998, which
has been doing fairly well. That's a self-contained body of work,
which could easily be supplemented by a working group effort to
evolve the specs. If we're going to be NIH, that seems like the
logical option to consider.
If we don't do that, we should adopt what seems to work well for others.
W3C standards look great, they've thought hard about the document format,
and that's the business they're in.
If we're going to last call something, I think it should be a choice
from a list of existing bodies of work: w3c, xml2rfc, or any of the
other document-production systems (OASIS, Docbook, ITU, OSI, or
whatever you want).
I'm very partial to xml2rfc, but I also see a lot of power in a
joint w3c/ietf spec. That will get you tools pretty quick. If the
IESG or the IAB recommended one path to take, a working group could
pretty quickly do any necessary tweaks (e.g., mapping to 2629 or
2629bis).
Carl
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf