Terminology for RFCXML Evolution
draft-bormann-rswg-terminology-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Carsten Bormann | ||
| Last updated | 2024-01-28 (Latest revision 2023-07-27) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The canonical format for RFCs is called RFCXML, with the currently effective details originally documented in the RFC 799x series. This format has experienced some uncontrolled evolution since, partially caused by an unwillingness to recognize the need for overt, deliberate evolution. Controlled RFCXML evolution is going to be complex. Its discussion will need agreed terminology, without which it will devolve into a Tower of Babel.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)