 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julian Reschke wrote: > Joe Touch schrieb: >> >> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 09:01:22AM -0700, >>> Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU> wrote a message of 34 lines which said: >>> >>>>> IMHO, IETF should always publish the "source" of its documents >>>>> (the current RFC process is far from perfect in that respect). >>>> Which source >>> The source. The author certainly knows it (yes, I'm aware that the RFC >>> editor performs changes which are not backported in the author's copy, >>> a really annoying thing; that's why I said the current process is >>> bad). >> >> That's part of the problem. The other is that 'source' is useful only >> with a snapshot of the tools that are used to process it. XML2RFC is a >> moving target in that regard, as is Word. > > Re XML2RFC: why do you need a snapshot if future development produces > versions that continue to implement the semantics defined in RFC2629? It doesn't use 2329; it extends it based on its unofficial successor (see the web pages). Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.