Bruce Lilly wrote:
*>
*> The problem is that 1id-guidelines appears many places; there is one
*> version (and, yes, I mean the content of the various documents
*> differs; these are not merely mirrors) on the ISI.EDU ftp site in the
*> in-notes directory (where the RFCs live), another o
Bruce Lilly wrote:
In this case. I'm not referring to a published BCP, but rather to IANA
action that I believe should be taken w.r.t. drafts when IANA makes a
registry entry based on a draft. This has happened a number of times. In
addition to the case which prompted my rant archived at
http://w
*> "INTERNET-DRAFT"? There is a discussion about restrictions on
*> content of the title -- RFC 2223 has text prohibiting a dot in
*> the title (implying that some circumlocution would be required
*> in a title addressing use of 802.11, etc.).
*>
It is a minor point, but the restricti
On Thu March 3 2005 21:32, Bill Fenner wrote:
> > Sect. 2 mentions the "instructions
> > to RFC Authors" document; that should probably refer (instead or
> > additionally) to RFC 2223 or its successor (which the named
> > document is apparently intended to become).
>
> The draft says 'This format
The draft version currently has a link to
http://www.rfc-editor.org/howtopub.html which has a link to the
formatting page and much more. I'm happy to add more information, and
I think Bruce's macros are a good addition to the set of available
tools too.
Bill
___
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:06:36 -0500, Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be.
> I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
It's intended to replace http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt .
> Sect. 2 mentions "six months" for expir
Then a pointer from the id-guidelines to there would be perfect.
Alia
At 01:48 PM 3/3/2005, Bob Braden wrote:
Re: formatting RFCs: Please see
http://www.rfc-editor.org/formatting.html
which is also hyper-linked under Publication at the RFC Editor web site.
A good place to start, if you are
Re: formatting RFCs: Please see
http://www.rfc-editor.org/formatting.html
which is also hyper-linked under Publication at the RFC Editor web site.
A good place to start, if you are concerned with RFCs.
RFC Editor
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@i
At 10:54 AM 3/3/2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Date: 2005-03-02 16:37
> From: Alia Atlas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One thing that I would have found very useful when I first starting
writing
> drafts would be a pointer to tools to actually format documents
> appropriately.
Me too. RFC 2223 helped a li
Bruce,
This is, IMO, part of the "standing procedural document"
problem, with variations for degrees of authority. The basic
problems are that
* the RFC publication process is too slow to deal with
procedural changes and not really designed for it (as
distinct from netwo
> Date: 2005-03-03 06:08
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[some rearrangment of text]
> > Rationale for BCP:
> > 1. I suspect we want the procedures to be readily visible to potential
> > Â Âauthors
>
> Yes, and right there behind the "Internet Drafts" link on www.ietf.org
> meets
> Date: 2005-03-02 16:37
> From: Alia Atlas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One thing that I would have found very useful when I first starting writing
> drafts would be a pointer to tools to actually format documents
> appropriately.
Me too. RFC 2223 helped a little, but it is rather vague and
incomp
Bruce,
Bruce Lilly wrote:
Date: 2005-03-02 07:59
From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bruce,
> It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be.
> I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
At the risk of flamage, IMHO it shouldn't. I think we need more
flexibility in operatio
One thing that I would have found very useful when I first starting writing
drafts would be a pointer to tools to actually format documents
appropriately. This could be a pointer to the xml2rfc information (with
associated RFC), to tools for nroff, etc., but it would be very helpful to
tell po
> Date: 2005-03-02 07:59
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bruce,
>
> Â> It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be.
> Â> I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
>
> At the risk of flamage, IMHO it shouldn't. I think we need more
> flexibility in operationa
Bruce,
> It's unclear what the status of the document is intended to be.
> I suspect it should probably be a BCP RFC.
At the risk of flamage, IMHO it shouldn't. I think we need more
flexibility in operational procedures than we can get from the
BCP mechanism. Asking for community input, and posting
> Date: 2005-02-19 19:02
> From: Bill Fenner
> Â I'm working on an update for 1id-guidelines.txt so that it
> will be ready to reflect the new IPR RFCs (RFC 3907 and 3908)
> when they are published. ÂIt's gone through one round of
> discussion in the IESG; now I'm looking for more complete
> re
> "Frank" == Frank Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frank> Bill Fenner wrote:
>> I'm looking for more complete review.
Frank> It would be nice if an author could simply submit a draft
Frank> with a "creative commons share alike license", and that's
Frank> replaced by
Bill Fenner wrote:
> I'm looking for more complete review.
It would be nice if an author could simply submit a draft with
a "creative commons share alike license", and that's replaced
by any necessary legalese in the published draft automatically.
Just dreaming, Frank
___
Hi,
I'm working on an update for 1id-guidelines.txt so that it
will be ready to reflect the new IPR RFCs (RFC 3907 and 3908)
when they are published. It's gone through one round of
discussion in the IESG; now I'm looking for more complete
review.
Pieces that could use extra review:
- Sectio
20 matches
Mail list logo
