[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Jun 6 03:50:21 PDT 2012


On 2012-06-06 11:06, John Levine wrote:
>> Right. But in case of technical ambiguity, it will be the signed-off
>> version that wins, so we'd better do the utmost to avoid ambiguity.
> 
> Do you really think that courts are so stupid that they would insist
> on using the content-free "canonical" text version of RFC 1131 rather
> than the Postscript or PDF?

That case works perfectly - the useless txt version identifies the
canonical ps version.

The learning from this is that when I wrote "I remain convinced that
we need to state which version is canonical" that doesn't mean that all
canonical versions have to be in the same format. In fact we're likely
to end up with something like:

For RFCs from 1 through 6999, the .txt version is canonical except
for RFC1131.ps (and the other handful of exceptions).

For RFCs from 7000 up, the .foobar version is canonical except
for ... (or we add it to the metatdata).

All other formats are provided for convenience [legal disclaimer
follows].

    Brian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list