Re: [Codel] missing part of section 6.2 of draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02, (Kathleen Nichols)

Re: [Codel] missing part of section 6.2 of draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02, (Kathleen Nichols)

[David Collier-Brown]

[Off-topic]
Someone with classic-typesetting-tools experience might wish to
volunteer a pandoc-based process. See, for example, 
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/589196/0e8f212d7a59f556/

 --dave


On 03/12/2014 03:00 PM, codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net wrote:
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:32:29 -0700
> From: Kathleen Nichols <nichols@pollere.com>
> To: "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: [Codel] missing part of section 6.2 of
> 	draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02
> Message-ID: <531F8EFD.5010807@pollere.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
>
> It has come to my attention that part of section 6.2 of the draft is
> missing, apparently due
> to passing through several programs in order to conform to the holy
> Internet Draft format.
> Since the missing part is quite interesting, here it is.
>
> When people without time to mess around with this archaic stuff stop
> doing Internet Drafts, the IETF will then only have drafts by people
> with time to mess around with this
> archaic stuff.
[snip]

-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain

Re: [Codel] missing part of section 6.2 of draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02, (Kathleen Nichols)

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2092 bytes --]

On Mar 12, 2014 1:11 PM, "David Collier-Brown" <davec-b@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> [Off-topic]
> Someone with classic-typesetting-tools experience might wish to
> volunteer a pandoc-based process. See, for example,
> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/589196/0e8f212d7a59f556/

The fq codel rfc was written in pandoc, and converted via pandoc2rfc. The
raw texts are managed in git and in github.

It took me a year of fiddling to get to acceptable output from this.

The amount of effort required was comparable to getting a paper formatted
for the IEEE with TeX, with far less pleasing results than TeX.

Certainly you have to be committed if you want to write an rfc. The present
process is a major barrier to entry.

>
>  --dave
>
>
> On 03/12/2014 03:00 PM, codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:32:29 -0700
> > From: Kathleen Nichols <nichols@pollere.com>
> > To: "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> > Subject: [Codel] missing part of section 6.2 of
> >       draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02
> > Message-ID: <531F8EFD.5010807@pollere.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> >
> >
> > It has come to my attention that part of section 6.2 of the draft is
> > missing, apparently due
> > to passing through several programs in order to conform to the holy
> > Internet Draft format.
> > Since the missing part is quite interesting, here it is.
> >
> > When people without time to mess around with this archaic stuff stop
> > doing Internet Drafts, the IETF will then only have drafts by people
> > with time to mess around with this
> > archaic stuff.
> [snip]
>
> --
> David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
> System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
> davecb@spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain
>
> _______________________________________________
> Codel mailing list
> Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3185 bytes --]

Re: [Codel] missing part of section 6.2 of draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02, (Kathleen Nichols)

[David Collier-Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1088 bytes --]

On 03/12/2014 04:23 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2014 1:11 PM, "David Collier-Brown" <davec-b@rogers.com
> <mailto:davec-b@rogers.com>> wrote:
> >
> > [Off-topic]
> > Someone with classic-typesetting-tools experience might wish to
> > volunteer a pandoc-based process. See, for example,
> > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/589196/0e8f212d7a59f556/
>
> The fq codel rfc was written in pandoc, and converted via pandoc2rfc.
> The raw texts are managed in git and in github.
>
> It took me a year of fiddling to get to acceptable output from this.
>
> The amount of effort required was comparable to getting a paper
> formatted for the IEEE with TeX, with far less pleasing results than TeX.
>
> Certainly you have to be committed if you want to write an rfc. The
> present process is a major barrier to entry.
>
> >
> >  --dave
>



AARGH!

I wasn't expecting that...

--dave





-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@spamcop.net           |                      -- Mark Twain


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2229 bytes --]

Re: [Codel] missing part of section 6.2 of draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02, (Kathleen Nichols)

[Eggert, Lars]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 350 bytes --]

On 2014-3-12, at 21:23, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> Certainly you have to be committed if you want to write an rfc. The present process is a major barrier to entry.

You don't have to edit the XML manually. There are tools that let you write in a friendlier format, such as markdown: https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629

Lars

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 273 bytes --]