[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

SM sm at resistor.net
Wed Jun 6 01:04:45 PDT 2012


At 00:06 06-06-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>(off list)

:-)

>On 2012-06-05 12:26, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>I don't see how we can "deal with that" except by stating which one
>is valid.
>
>And as Martin's story of two I-Ds and a patent seems to show,
>even formatting differences can be relevant. So the argument that
>automatic reflowing doesn't matter is unconvincing to me.
>
>I remain convinced that we need to state which version is canonical.
>That doesn't mean I'm against reflowable formats, etc., for
>convenience. It's just that there needs to be a reference version.

The RSE only has to agree about which version is 
canonical.  It can be a version which nobody 
uses.  It would be good if the content is as 
similar as possible with the version people 
prefer.  It does not have to be an exact 
copy.  It does not have to be 40 characters per 
line.  It does not have to contain page numbers after every 2000 characters.

An alternative to all this would be "go and write 
code".  Natural selection will choose "the" version.

There is this saying: "We reject kings, 
presidents and voting.  We believe in rough 
consensus and running code".  The first sentence 
was about kicking out the IAB.  The running code 
part is whatever the RFC says, it does not matter 
if the code does something else.

Regards,
-sm

P.S. I disagree with the description of consensus 
posted some time back.  It is similar to the version used by a non-IETF body.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list