Re: Alternative formats for IDs

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker at bbiw.net>]

> Are you suggesting that the IETF adopt the xml2rfc source as the
> normative version of a specification, rather than the .txt (or .pdf)
> version?

yes.

as I understand your current operation, the *real* normative version is in nroff.

i believe that an incremental process of switching to xml2rfc -- with easy 
access to that source version for follow-on editing -- would be a considerable 
improvement over the status quo.



> Who is volunteering to maintain xml2rfc and guarantee backwards
> compatibility for the next 20 years?  (And why should
> we believe them?)

Maintaining xml2rfc is going to far less fragile than maintaining nroff.  Nroff 
has no current industry penetration.  XML has quite a lot.

(Both are textual encodings, so that the fall-back position of reverting to pure 
text is probably equally painful.)


d/
--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf