[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Wed Jun 6 04:29:11 PDT 2012

>> The original xml2rfc, of course.
> Leaving aside the facts that despite the missing 😃  this must a joke 
> and that there is not always XML2RFC source for an RFC, this can't work.

Of course it can, once we make xml2rfc the format going forward.  As I 
would hope would be painfully obvious, if we change the canonical format, 
there'll be one canonical format for RFCs 1 through N (except for the ones 
that are in Postscript, or are PDF scans of hand written originals) and 
another one for RFCs N+1 and later.

> Even on this list several people have proclaimed that reading the source 
> is something they are not prepared to do.

That's nice.  I am not prepared to read any future RFC that isn't legible 
on my Kindle, which rules out line printer page images.  Anyone who is 
competent to write an I-D is certainly able to read xml2rfc source if they 
need to, which in nearly all cases, they won't.

> Let alone the lawyers we're trying to get on the good side of by having 
> a designated canonical format.

Sigh.  Please tell me how many documents you have identified for a lawyer 
in legal proceedings, so we can have some idea about the basis for your 
concerns, and we can continue this discussion.  I've done dozens, and the 
question of whether a document's format is "canonical" or official has 

John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list