[rfc-i] Summary: use case for 2119 markup

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Fri Jun 20 13:24:32 PDT 2014

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 01:37:45PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
>  this is actually a process change, and hence should go through the IETF consensus process

Wait a minute.  I thought we were _already_ accepting a process
change, because the "canonical" version of the file is no longer to be
the text file, but instead some other format.  We scraped that by
through claiming that the text file rules didn't change, and that the
processor had to, by definition, produce the correct text output.

As near as I can tell, the only thing this additional markup plan
changes is one way by which that correct outputis created.  

What did I miss?  


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list