Can the RFC Production Center remind us about what the actual numbers
are, and also whether they ever generate an XML version if the authors
didn't supply one?
Julian's numbers are good approximations; 50-60% of docs have XML source files.
The Production Center does not create XML files. We process XML files when XML
source files are provided to us.
Thanks,
Sandy
for the RFC Production Center
From: Julian Reschke <julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de>
Date: February 23, 2011 5:09:54 AM EST
To: Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net, IAOC <iaoc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, IETF
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: RFC production center XML format usage, was: [IAOC] xml2rfc and
legal services RFPs
On 23.02.2011 10:46, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 22.02.2011 17:18, Russ Housley wrote:
There are many tools used by I-D
authors, including nroff/troff/groff, NroffEdit, MS Word templates,
LaTex,
and a plethora of editors. The IETF cannot take on every tool that
seems
popular.
Isn't the statistic of xml2rfc use somewhere around 50-60%?
Roughly half. Again, that is why there is a value to the RFC
Production Center.
...
Can the RFC Production Center remind us about what the actual numbers
are, and also whether they ever generate an XML version if the authors
didn't supply one?
...
I just realized that I have an archive of XML versions of RFCs in AUTH48
state; so I *can* report the percentage of XML versions since ~RFC5000.
Note that these may be inaccurate (for instance, not all RFC numbers get
assigned, right?); it just observes how much XML files ended up in AUTH48.
Here are the numbers:
RFC5000 - RFC5099: 41
RFC5100 - RFC5199: 44
RFC5200 - RFC5299: 47
RFC5300 - RFC5399: 48
RFC5400 - RFC5499: 64
RFC5500 - RFC5599: 59
RFC5600 - RFC5699: 58
RFC5700 - RFC5799: 64
RFC5800 - RFC5899: 63
RFC5900 - RFC5999: 68
RFC6000 - RFC6099: 69
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf