[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Jun 2 00:41:23 PDT 2012
On 2012-06-01 17:33, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 6/1/12 8:55 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>> What the heck is a "legal use case"? Do you have any evidence of a law
>> anywhere that says "the canonical format for publishing must be displayable"?
>>From Heather's requirements list:
> "* to verify the final content of a document in cases of legal dispute"
> "While the canonical source format MUST be easily converted in to a variety
> of other formats, a single canonical display format must exist to satisfy
> the requirements of legal and content disputes"
> "Need one source and display format to be the authoritative version,
> suitable for legal records"
> I'm more worried about contracts than IPR. The use case is that a contract
> specifies that software X complies with RFC Y. How does an expert witness
The contract needs to specify what it is referring to, e.g.
"RFC1305 refers to the graphical version to be found at the web link
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1305.pdf (last accessed 2012-06-02)."
If it doesn't, the witness would have to say "I don't know which document
this contract refers to."
This is why a canonical presentation format is needed, for IPR *or*
More information about the rfc-interest