[TSG-Access-RD] specifications format, etc...

[Gavin Brown]

On the face of it, it seems like a good idea, but I wonder if this would
hinder the accessibility of the document to a non-technical audience.

Perhaps we can have the technicakl specification in I-D format but the
report/commentary in a format more pleasing to law/policy folks (i.e.,
Word)?

On 24/01/2019 20:19, Andy Newton wrote:
> Scott and I had a brief chat today to go over consolidating the requirements,
> and one question came up: what format do we use?
> 
> Given that our final specification output will likely require RDAP extensions,
> which require specification publication for registration with IANA. Not that it
> is required, but we were thinking that we should start the practice of using
> IETF-style specifications.
> 
> The benefits are that it is a style many of us find familiar, and if we ever
> decided to publish these as Information independent submissions to the IETF,
> then there is no need for conversion.
> 
> Do you all have opinions either way on this?
> 
> -andy
> 

-- 
Gavin Brown
Chief Technology Officer
CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC)
Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services
for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries
https://www.centralnic.com/
+44.7548243029

CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with
company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London,
EC2R 6AR.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tsg-access-rd/attachments/20190128/3ec2a701/signature.asc>