[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri Jun 1 11:54:39 PDT 2012

On 6/1/2012 11:47 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> On 6/1/12 11:33 AM, "Paul Hoffman"<paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>  wrote:
>>> This thread is a proposal to change the requirements list to not have a
>>> canonical display format. If a court says "give us an exact copy of RFC 9886",
>>> we send them the canonical document. If they ask "what does this look like",
>>> we say "it looks like many things, such as these different versions". Both are
>>> completely truthful and actually useful to a court.
>> As long as all of the formats contain the same information, I don't actually
>> care about having a canonical format.
> That's reasonable. Regardless of whether or not the canonical format is displayable, there should be a rule that all formats generated by the RFC Editor have all the same information.

The same *necessary* information. Some can have more info than others - 
some may strip structure, e.g.

I'd suggest that legal answer this, since they're the ones who would 
know what is needed, though.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list