[rfc-i] Russ Housley review of draft-iab-rfcformatreq-00

Bernard Aboba bernard.aboba at gmail.com
Sat Dec 22 16:13:22 PST 2012


 Heather and nevil:

I think this document hides the lead. I greatly appreciate the
gathering of the "Arguments for" or an "Arguments against" material.
They are very helpful in understanding the trade offs that must be
made. Yet, the RFC Series Editor seems to have made one very
significant conclusion that really drives the way forward.

Section 2.1.5 correctly states that embedded information can support
quick translation from UTF-8 to plain text. The surprise is that an
ASCII "translation" of any UTF-8 letters is also a requirement.

Section 3.1 takes further by requiring publication formats to support
plain-text printing. This requirement comes without justification or
discussion. Frankly, it surprises me.

This leads me to the conclusion that the RFC Series will evolve by
selecting one or more new primary publication formats, but these
will also be available in ASCII.

I hope this means that authors can continue to use ASCII in lieu of
a new primary publication format if they choose to do so. This
topic is not addressed by the draft one way or the other.

Please see other much less significant comments in the attachment:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iab/trac/attachment/ticket/247/draft-iab-rfcformatreq-00-comment.txt

Issue submission: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iab/trac/ticket/247


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list