IETF conflict review for draft-ribose-asciirfc
conflict-review-ribose-asciirfc-00

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Adrian Farrel ,
    Adrian Farrel ,
    draft-ribose-asciirfc@ietf.org,
    rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Cc: IETF-Announce ,
    The IESG ,
    iana@iana.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-ribose-asciirfc-06

The IESG has completed a review of draft-ribose-asciirfc-06 consistent with
RFC5742.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'AsciiRFC: Authoring
Internet-Drafts And RFCs Using AsciiDoc'  as an
Informational RFC.

The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and
IETF work.

The IESG would also like the Independent Submissions Editor to review the
comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or
not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both
the ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-ribose-asciirfc/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ribose-asciirfc/

The process for such documents is described at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
It is slightly jarring to see that the reference targets used in the example document (snippets)s are a mixture of
(1) actual documents that are topical to draft authoring, (2) comedic (purpose-created?) drafts, and
(3) actual technical documents with overlapping authorship with this document.  But that is of course not
relevant to the question being asked of the IESG.

[Ballot comment]
I think the answer is correct.

On a quick skim, I note that the document itself -- presumably produced by the toolchain it describes -- appears to have all leading spaces stripped from artwork and code, resulting in varying degrees of damage to readability. I would hope that the popularization of this toolchain does not lead to documents with similar defects showing up for approval in the IESG stream, and would strongly recommend that the authors debug this aspect of the toolchain prior to publication of this document.

[Ballot comment]
The way this tool for Internet-Draft formatting is being handled seems consistent with the way we've handled things like the MS-Word Internet-Draft format in the past - also published in the Independent Stream.