ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: RFC Editor SOW Review

2006-07-13 10:53:46

Stewart Bryand wrote:
Looking at the SOW again, it seems to completely ignore RFC2223.txt
section 1 that says:

"While the primary RFCs is always an ASCII text file, secondary or
alternative versions of RFC may be provided in PostScript.  This
decision is motivated by the desire to include diagrams, drawings,
and such in RFCs.  PostScript documents (on paper only, so far) are
visually more appealing and have better readability."

and also


much of the text in the SOW is derived from mankin-pub-req.  Previous versions 
of mankin-pub-req were unclear on whether alternative formats with better 
graphics were to be supported.  The current version 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-10.txt makes this 
explicit by adding the sentence "Supplemental files may also include enhanced 
versions of the document containing graphics or sections not presentable in 
text format." to section 3.9.  My assumption is that future versions of the SOW 
will pick this up.

mankin-pub-req also has requirements that the publisher support process change 
and process experiments (See 3.20).  I believe this would address the desire to 
have the publisher work with the IETF to allow new formats should the IETF 
decide to do so.  These requirements however are not currently reflected in the 
SOW.

Stephen Hayes

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>