[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

SM sm at resistor.net
Wed Jun 6 03:17:27 PDT 2012

Hi Yoav,
At 01:19 06-06-2012, Yoav Nir wrote:
>I think it at least should be the one the author(s) review in 
>AUTH48. That way, at least the canonical version has a higher chance 
>of being error-free.

If I was writing a draft, I would like people to review the version 
which ends up as canonical.  I am sure I will make a mistake in the 
ABNF and the parser won't flag it.  The RFC Editor won't notice 
it.  I am sure that I may make a mistake in the tables and I won't 
notice it.  If I want to end up with an error-free version, I'll need 
as many people as possible to proof-read the draft.  I don't require 
any of them to read the canonical version as people has their own 
preference when it comes to format or reading device.  As I am not 
the expert or suzerain, I cannot tell you what is better for you.

>Not going to happen. If there's one thing that these threads made 
>clear, it's that Martin Rex and the people who read documents on 
>iPhones not going to use the same output format.

I use http://tools.ietf/html/ to read drafts because I find it 
convenient.  I would use http://tools.ietf.org/id/ to proof-read my 
draft as I get a format which is closer to the canonical version.

If there is something to learn from same output format, I can say 
that this message will not appear the same to everyone reading 
it.  It's not that much of a problem unless it contains some ASCII 
art.  I could replace the ASCII art with a picture to avoid known 
problems.  It's all a matter of how important it is for me to ensure 
that you can understand the diagram.

>Strange, I've never thought of equating "whatever the RFC says" with 
>"running code". There's a bunch of thinly- and not-implemented RFCs 
>out there, and a bunch of non-conformant implementations.

The RFC series is full of RFCs which will never be implemented.  The 
RFC series contains RFCs for which there is a large number of 
non-conforming implementations.  If the the Proposed Standard cannot 
be translated into running code, it's a work of fiction.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list