Subject: Internet Draft Guidelines Require Precise Formatting?

From: "Sabahattin Gucukoglu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 06:37:22 +0100

Hi all,

I at some point in the (near, hopefully) future wish to submit an internet 
draft - STRN, ESMTP extension for secure client-server role exchange - but 
notice that the guidelines set out in 1id-guidelines.txt appear to mandate 
certain formatting requirements.

A) I don't see any RFC or draft that proposes this mechanism already 
(though I did notice an obscure atrn and turn used as an extension for 
authenticated turn once on a Microsoft SMTP service).  Is it already 
available or otherwise documented?  My reasons for defining it are really 
for another message/draft.
B) I am totally blind, so the process of formatting the document - 
especially in plain text - is going to prove very difficult.  Are there 
other provisions that I might take advantage of that would solve this 
problem?

Any ideas/suggestions much appreciated.

Cheers,
Sabahattin

- -- 

Thought for the day:
    Advertising (n): the science of arresting the human
    intelligence for long enough to get money from it.
           -- Stephen Leacock.

Latest PGP Public key?  Click:
<mailto:[email-masked]>
and send that message as is.

Sabahattin Gucukoglu
Phone: +44 (0)20 7,502-1615
Mobile: +44 (0)7986 053399
http://www.sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/
E-mail or MSN Messenger: <[email-masked]>

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:58:45 -0700

> other provisions that I might take advantage of that would solve this

If you use xml2rfc from <http://xml.resource.org/>, it will take care of
all of the formatting for you.  That's probably the best approach; I would
use it for any new RFCs I wrote.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 02:00:44 -0400

Hi Sabahattin,

On Friday, Apr 18, 2003, at 01:37 Canada/Eastern, Sabahattin Gucukoglu 

> Any ideas/suggestions much appreciated.

You might take a look at RFC 2629 and the associated tools at

   http://xml.resource.org/

If you can edit HTML, you can mark up an internet-draft in XML per RFC 
2629. It's a nice, simple DTD with very few scary monsters, and its 
text rendering of documents is pretty conformant with 
1id-guidelines.txt.

Joe

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 06:16:36 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Sabahattin,

Please let me add that the "mandated" guidelines do not seem to
be tightly enforced - I think things are improving, but I
remember having to reformat a LOT of internet-drafts over the
past few years so they would print on 8.5x11 paper with
fixed-width fonts. Probably the most frequent problem I
encountered was IDs that had obviously been done with multiple
font sizes, because there was no "right" size that lined up all
page breaks.

"Require Precise Formatting" seems an overstatement. Do your
best and don't worry about imperfect formatting. Imperfect
technical details are a lot more interesting!

I don't speak for the community, but I think if you used the XML
package mentioned in this thread, you'd be FINE, and probably
ahead of more than a few other drafts being submitted!

The case for tight enforcement on IDs would make more sense if
00-version IDs became RFCs with little editing, but that doesn't
seem to be the common case. If people like your ideas, you
shouldn't have any problem getting help with exact formatting of
later revisions.

Spencer

--- Sabahattin Gucukoglu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi all,
> 

[deleted down to]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 06:34:33 -0700

Sabahattin,

SD> Please let me add that the "mandated" guidelines do not seem to
SD> be tightly enforced -

For Internet-Drafts, page-breaks are not required.

So the details that are essential seem to be the beginning bits of
titles, the abstract, and the intellectual property announcements.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:16:57 +0100 (BST)

> For Internet-Drafts, page-breaks are not required.

and neither is clue.

L.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[email-masked]>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:17:12 -0700 (PDT)

And Dave's note matters - I was talking specifically about
"formatting", but the guidelines do include contents as well -
and the content guidelines DO matter, and are supposed to be
enforced...

Spencer

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:48:26 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 6:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Internet Draft Guidelines Require Precise Formatting?
...

> For Internet-Drafts, page-breaks are not required.
...

If this is true, when can we expect
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
to be updated to reflect this change?

Randy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:35:05 -0700

RP> If this is true, when can we expect
RP> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
RP> to be updated to reflect this change?

Probably not.

1.  There are bigger things to spend our staff resources on

2.  It is typical for formal documents to state requirements that are
more stringent than actually practised.  In this case, the deviation is
small and the benefit of following the formal requirement is real.

d/

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:22:38 -0700

Hi -

> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 12:35 PM

...

Ok, let me ask another way:
Who has the list of which items from
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
that can be ignored, particularly when we're
reviewing documents before giving them to the IESG?

Randy

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 14:01:17 -0400

In message <005701c3076d$6d626320$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>, "Randy Presuhn" writes
>to be updated to reflect this change?

Page breaks are highly desirable for I-Ds, because it makes it easier 
for people to print them out.  They're much less necessary when things 
are moving to the RFC stage, because the RFC editor is going to strip 
all the formatting from the I-D and start from there.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 14:40:37 -0400

--On Monday, 21 April, 2003 14:01 -0400 "Steven M. Bellovin" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> In message <005701c3076d$6d626320$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>,
> "Randy Presuhn" writes :

> Page breaks are highly desirable for I-Ds, because it makes it
> easier  for people to print them out.  They're much less
> necessary when things  are moving to the RFC stage, because
> the RFC editor is going to strip  all the formatting from the
> I-D and start from there.

Steve,

Interesting you say that.  I know of very few systems and modern 
printers these days that handle "printing things out" which 
cannot generate the page breaks for printing in a dynamic way. 
Those devices and their drivers, and print-preparation programs, 
even tend to know how to differentiate between 8.5x11 and A4 
paper, and two-up arrangements, and how to do the right thing. 
That was less the case when most printing was done on 
continuous-form paper and pagination tended to keep printed 
lines off the perforations.  But I doubt that many of us are 
dependent on those sorts of devices today and those who are 
still don't have paginating drivers, or "pr" or equivalent 
pipes, available.

The I-D administrator does prefer that documents be paginated 
because the IESG has told the secretariat that I-D announcements 
should show the number of pages in the I-D.   Maybe some 
adjustment there would be in order.

By contrast, the RFC Editor has, on at least some recent 
documents, complained about lack of pagination, lack of a table 
of contents with filled-in page numbers, etc.   Like you, I 
would have assumed that they would be better off without those 
things on the grounds that they would just have to strip them 
off, making extra work, but that seems to not be the case.

     john

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:02:17 -0700

>for people to print them out.

Um, which software that takes a long text file *doesn't* put in page 
breaks as it sends it to the printer? This has been a standard part 
of nearly every word processing and text editing program for two 
decades now...

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:15:22 -0400 (EDT)

While right-thinking people no doubt cite to paragraph and section
numbers, the world is not entirely composed of right-thinking people.  
Having consistent canonical page numbers eliminates a source of potential
confusion especially when dealing with groups outside the IETF...

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:43:35 -0400

Michael,

We have "consistent canonical page numbers" in RFCs, which are 
stable documents.   Citations to page numbers in I-Ds are just 
an invitation to trouble and confusion, since an external page 
reference to some particular material in, e.g., draft-...-01 is 
unlikely to be stable into draft-...-03 and draft-...01 is 
unlikely to be readily available.  Of course, this is also one 
of the reasons why our formal position is that I-Ds are not to 
be referenced or cited: when someone violates that rule, they 
are on their own, and neither page numbers nor paragraph/ 
section numbers are going to help them much.

     john

--On Monday, 21 April, 2003 15:15 -0400 "Michael Froomkin - 
U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> While right-thinking people no doubt cite to paragraph and
> section numbers, the world is not entirely composed of
> right-thinking people.   Having consistent canonical page
> numbers eliminates a source of potential confusion especially
> when dealing with groups outside the IETF...
>
>> > Page breaks are highly desirable for I-Ds, because it makes
>> > it easier for people to print them out.
>>
>> Um, which software that takes a long text file *doesn't* put
>> in page  breaks as it sends it to the printer? This has been
>> a standard part  of nearly every word processing and text
>> editing program for two  decades now...
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |
> [email-masked] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral
> Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506
> (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm                         -->It's
> warm here.<--
>
>

---

From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:53:37 -0700 (PDT)

Isn't it LINE numbers you lawyers want?  :-)

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:20:33 -0400 (EDT)

Can't hurt!

But seriously, that's only found in documents designed to be submitted to
courts, presumably so the written transcript is clear as to what is being
discussed ("Mr. X, I direct your attention to exibit A32, page 912, line
6, did you or did you not say that....")

Meanwhile John K. explains to me that since no one is supposed to cite
ID's it shouldn't be made easy.  Maybe he shoulda been a lawyer?

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:19:52 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, "Ole J. 
>Isn't it LINE numbers you lawyers want?  :-)

In places; elsewhere, it's page number.  A typical case citation is 
something like 60 F.2d 737, which means "page 737 of volume 60 of the 
Federal Reporter, Second Series".  In other words, the page number in 
the physical volume *is* a canonical references.  This has led to some 
interesting copyright litigation; opinions, being government documents, 
aren't copyrightable, but what about the physical layout done by the 
authorized publisher, which is the only thing that can be cited?  (I 
don't recall how those cases were resolved.)

---

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 14:42:52 -0700

At 12:02 PM 4/21/03, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>breaks as it sends it to the printer? This has been a standard part of 
>nearly every word processing and text editing program for two decades now...

Indeed.  Why continue this archaic mid-20th century nonsense?

I, personally, will never waste a second of my own time inserting page 
breaks in any I-D that I write.

         Ross.

---

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:11:28 -0400

>confusion especially when dealing with groups outside the IETF...

Certainly agreed.  But it is also true that the formatting 
requirements for I-Ds are one of many obstacles to "outside" 
participation in the IETFprocess.   Although it may seem silly to 
some (and some of you may not want to hear from them anyway), the 
IETF's formatting rules do present a (relatively small) hurdle to 
public policy advocates and other outsiders.

I personally think that there is value in allowing those less 
familiar with the IETF an easier way to express their views in a 
standard format acceptable to the IETF.  And frankly, it would give 
the often seen reaction (blowoff?) "write it up and submit it as an 
I-D" more power if the I-D route was a little easier for non-IETFers.

So at the risk of heresy, I would consider expressly allowing an 
OPTIONAL "more lenient" format for "individual" I-Ds.  Specifically, 
I would suggest a rule saying that the lenient format CANNOT be used 
for:
   - any WG-chartered I-D
   - any individual I-D which is proposed to move RFC status
   - any I-D for which formal IESG/IAB review is sought for any other purpose

So basically the lenient format could be used to raise initial ideas 
and express initial input to the IETF community.  Any document that 
is intended to proceed through the formal editing and review 
processes of the IETF, however, would need to be in the stricter 
format (thereby facilitating debate and discussion using page 
references).

To be clear, I do not think there is a need to reduce the substantive 
requirements (e.g., IPR statement, security considerations, etc.) -- 
those can be included in a "lenient" template, and sometimes they (in 
theory) increase the intellectual rigor of the document.

If there is interest in this idea, then I would want to see if we 
could arrive at a lenient format that would be (a) easily producable 
with standard word processing software (even if one has to, for 
example, "print to file" using a generic printer driver), and (b) 
would still be close enough to pure ASCII so that it would be easily 
and correctly readable (and printable) with the full range of OS's 
out there.  Yes, I am aware that the I-D page offers a MS Word 
template, but it is still a multistep process that might be able to 
be simplified if the formating constraints were lower.  And yes I 
know that there are challenges due to the different line termination 
rules on different OSs.  So I admit that my two goals may not be 
achievable, but is there value in trying?

John Morris

-- 
----------------------------------------
John B. Morris, Jr.
Director, Internet Standards, Technology
    & Policy Project
Center for Democracy and Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 637-9800
(202) 637-0968 fax
[email-masked]
http://www.cdt.org
----------------------------------------

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:15:39 -0400

> breaks in any I-D that I write.

Do people really mark up internet drafts by hand instead of using tools 
like nroff or Dr Rose's rfc2629 tools?

If so, why?

If not, why does this list contain a thread about page breaks?

Joe

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:43:37 -0700 (PDT)

% > I, personally, will never waste a second of my own time inserting page 
% > breaks in any I-D that I write.
% 
% Do people really mark up internet drafts by hand instead of using tools 
% like nroff or Dr Rose's rfc2629 tools?
% 
% If so, why?
% If not, why does this list contain a thread about page breaks?
% 
% Joe

	Most of the IDs that I have ever written have no page breaks.
	They are short enough that page breaks are superfluous and most
	were written before massive inclusion of CYA-boilerplate was 
	required.

	With CYA-boilerplate and novel-sized IDs, (the OSPF drafts were
	notorious) page breaks are useful.

	I expect that any new IDs that I write will be hand crafted.

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:41:34 -0700

At 6:15 PM -0400 4/21/03, Joe Abley wrote:
>Do people really mark up internet drafts by hand instead of using 
>tools like nroff or Dr Rose's rfc2629 tools?

You forgot the third choice: no markup. Just use a text editor that 
can create paragraphs easily. There are many on most platforms.

--Paul Hoffman, Director

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:44:39 -0400

On Monday, Apr 21, 2003, at 18:41 Canada/Eastern, Paul Hoffman / IMC 

> can create paragraphs easily. There are many on most platforms.

Actually I didn't forget the third choice; I just should have said 
"generate" instead of "mark up".

So, if you generate I-Ds by hand, why do you do that? Surely it's more 
hassle than just formatting paragraphs (section numbers, 
cross-references, tables of contents, pagination, etc).

Joe

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:44:48 -0400 (EDT)

Most versions of nroff do not make it particularly easy to insert form
feeds but its trivial to do with a step of post-processing. I use nroff
and submit all my IDs with FFs.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Joe Abley wrote:

> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:15:39 -0400
> From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
> To: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:57:13 -0700

John,

JM>    Although it may seem silly to
JM> some (and some of you may not want to hear from them anyway), the 
JM> IETF's formatting rules do present a (relatively small) hurdle to 
JM> public policy advocates and other outsiders.

well, this is an unexpected benefit of our formatting rules...

the IETF is a technical body, not a place for public policy debates.

and to the extent you want to pursue the matter seriously, there are
at least two critical items to remembers:

1.  The format requirements are easy to satisfy, with support for MS
Word and XML-based documents readily available;

2.  Technical standards bodies typically have some sort of format
standard. Within my limited experience, the IETF requirements are
easily the easiest.

d/
JM> I personally think that there is value in allowing those less

d/

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:41:05 -0600 (MDT)

> From: John Morris <[email-masked]>

>               ...  But it is also true that the formatting 
> participation in the IETFprocess.  ...

I cannot imagine how a reasonable person who subscribes to the IETF
announce mailing list or who maintains a private library of RFCs and
so has the faintest idea about what the IETF has been producing for
the last 10 years would fewer instead of more obstacles to "outside"
participation in The IETF Process.

Never mind that in ANSI committees I learned to beware of managers,
sales people, and other committee go-ers bearing gifts whenever I
heard a phrase like "The Standards Process."

> Center for Democracy and Technology

What does democracy have to do with technical standards or other
information in general and the IETF in particular?

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:47:34 -0400

Dave,

>the IETF is a technical body, not a place for public policy debates.

Not to start an extended debate (especially in a thread on 
formatting), but as much as the IETF would like to avoid public 
policy debates (for good reasons that I appreciate), there are times 
when _technical_ decisions have significant impact on public policy 
concerns.  I believe that neither the IETF nor the public are well 
served by ignoring (or being unaware of) those potential impacts. 
Thus, I think that there are times where public policy input into the 
IETF is a healthy, constructive thing, especially if the input is 
provided in a constructive matter (and yes, in a widely readable 
format).   To promote constructive, non-time-wasting input, I've 
encouraged policy advocates to (a) learn about the procedures, 
structure, and culture of the IETF before participating, (b) read and 
review the relevant lists before participating, and (c) use the modes 
of communication accepted by the community for their input.  It is on 
this last point that I-D formatting is relevant.

>Word and XML-based documents readily available;

Can the requirements be satisfied using MS Word and the multistep 
production/post-processing procedures?   Absolutely.  There is even 
evidence that some lawyers can do it.  But it is not "easy" to 
non-techies who seldom work within the standards world.  And although 
XML and Marshall's utility are great (separately and together), that 
is way beyond what can reasonably be asked of a non-techie today.

I appreciate that the IETF is set in its ways (and more often than 
not I appreciate those ways).  A pitched battle to change the 
formatting requirements is not one that I personally feel the need to 
wage right now.  But if on the other hand there is any broader 
recognizition by the community that thoughtful and constructive 
outside input can sometimes be valuable, then I would be happy to 
participate in an effort to facilitate such input, or at least reduce 
non-critical barriers to such input.

John

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:05:32 -0700

JM>  there are times
JM> when _technical_ decisions have significant impact on public policy
JM> concerns.  I believe that neither the IETF nor the public are well
JM> served by ignoring (or being unaware of) those potential impacts.

1.  it is hard to imagine that the minimal formatting requirements in
force for ietf documents pose a meaningful barrier to serious input of
any kind.

2.  whether, and when, the ietf should participate in public policy
debates is, itself, a matter of debate.  possibly even a worthy one.

JM> Can the requirements be satisfied using MS Word and the multistep
JM> production/post-processing procedures?   Absolutely.  There is even
JM> evidence that some lawyers can do it.  But it is not "easy" to 
JM> non-techies who seldom work within the standards world.

1. c.f., your statement above about acquiring some of the appearance of a
natural inhabitant, to blend into the environment.

2. anyone who thinks the ietf formatting requirements are not easy has
not had to deal with very interesting formatting requirements.

d/

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:09:24 -0400 (EDT)

> information in general and the IETF in particular?

http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/discourse/ils.pdf

;>

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:26:37 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Vernon Schryver 

>information in general and the IETF in particular?

Among the many public policy issues that the IETF has been involved
in -- i.e., that affect out "technical" standards -- are privacy,
wiretapping, crypto export, and IPR.  We won't even go into the
whole ICANN space.  (John Morris, to whom that comment was addressed, 
is an author of at least three WG drafts.  I, for one, am glad to have 
him around the IETF.)

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:38:38 -0400

--On Monday, 21 April, 2003 18:44 -0400 Joe Abley 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Monday, Apr 21, 2003, at 18:41 Canada/Eastern, Paul Hoffman
> / IMC wrote:
>
>>> Do people really mark up internet drafts by hand instead of
>>> using  tools like nroff or Dr Rose's rfc2629 tools?
>>
>> You forgot the third choice: no markup. Just use a text
>> editor that  can create paragraphs easily. There are many on
>> most platforms.
>
> Actually I didn't forget the third choice; I just should have
> said "generate" instead of "mark up".
>
> So, if you generate I-Ds by hand, why do you do that? Surely
> it's more hassle than just formatting paragraphs (section
> numbers, cross-references, tables of contents, pagination,
> etc).

Actually, no, it is not more hassle.   I've been using straight 
emacs and its clones as my main I-D production/generation tool 
for years.  Paragraphs are easy, pasting in boilerplate is easy, 
indention is easy, keeping track of section numbers and 
references is a major (but necessary) annoyance, but pagination 
(and per-page headers and footers are a significant annoyance 
that involve little payoff.  And there are huge advantages to 
editing on exactly the document form the WG is looking at, 
rather than having to transpose comments into some other 
formatting setup that then generates the I-D format.

I've also tried using the MS Word tools with complex documents 
where I wanted to do extensive change-tracking and annotation. 
MS Word (especially Word XP) is very good at that, but getting 
heavily-annotated, cross-referenced, and precisely formatted 
documents from Word format into RFC (or I-D) format using RFC 
3285 and its template setups is, well, a learning experience... 
and not one that I can recommend to others.

       john

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:33:01 -0600 (MDT)

> From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>

> is an author of at least three WG drafts.  I, for one, am glad to have 

There is a very short and slick slope from due consideration for
non-technical aspects of technical standards to voting on the value
of pi.  Removing barriers to participation by "outsiders" would only
bring more contributions like
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-terrell-math-quant-new-para-redefi-bin-math-04.txt
without significantly helping people with something to say.

What the special interests, the mob and the kooks say they think is
not the most important consideration even when evaluating non-technical
ideas.  Dr. David Sternlight and Jim Flemming are the canonical "policy
analysts" for computers and the Internet.  That certainly doesn't mean
that non-technical issues are less important.  As you say, privacy
and other issues are more important than most protocol details.
However, it does mean that I'm very glad that most people who style
themselves as "policy analysts" and say they support "democratic values
in technology" are miles away from me.

As for ICANN...I thought you meant to disagree with me.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:21:47 -0400

> formatting setup that then generates the I-D format.

I also get nothing out of ^Ls in our documents, or headers and footers.
I wouldn't mind seeing them go.  However, section numbers are critically
important, and I think getting them wrong is the main danger of doing it
all by hand.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:30:16 -0400

> and express initial input to the IETF community.  Any document that 

I will posit that this list is the proper venue for that.  In fact,
inability to convince *anybody* with the technical ability to do an I-D
is probably indicative of either crankhood or such poor communication
skills that formatting is the *least* of your worries (and a good engineer
may not even bother to distinguish those two cases...)

Write it up, post it... the IETF list is so culturally biased against
dropping good ideas on the floor without discussion  that we can even chase
patently bad ideas around in circles (witness the extended debate on this
thread ;)

/Valdis

---

From: Dave Aronson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:23:35 -0400

On Monday 21 April 2003 18:11, John Morris wrote:

> standard format acceptable to the IETF.

The assorted mailing lists (this, and the WGs) can do for that.  You 
can't get much more "non-techie friendly" than email.

-- 
David J. Aronson, Software Engineer for hire in Washington DC area.
See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, references, etc.

---

From: MC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 22:14:46 +0200

> other provisions that I might take advantage of that would solve this 

What platform are you using? Since it seems possible for you to write
text messages, can't you just insert the usual nroff macros to
generate the ID?

See /Instructions to RFC Authors/, RFC 2223, which includes an nroff
template and a small Perl script.

There are also a few hints here:

  http://www.rfc-editor.org/formatting.html

which is easily viewable with a text only browser.