[rfc-i] EOL in draft-flanagan-plaintext-04

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Oct 28 14:27:57 PDT 2014

On 29/10/2014 08:49, Robert Sparks wrote:
> On 10/28/14 2:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Well, since it was me who asked for the old EOL text to be kept,
>> I would like to know why you think the inconsistent EOL problem has gone
>> away. As far as I know, it's still alive and kicking when files are
>> copied
>> between any Unix-like system and Windows, and can be seen trivially by
>> any user of NotePad on Windows when the file has LF alone to signal a
>> new line.
>> Maybe the old text goes too far, but I think the problem does need to
>> be flagged somehow.
> As I said, I don't mind warning people that they might run into a file
> where EOL has been changed, but we should define what we're going
> to publish unambiguously.

Agreed. But we need the YMMV warning too.


>>     Brian
>> On 29/10/2014 08:08, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>>> +1.  Pick a line ending and stick to it.  To start painting the bike
>>> shed,
>>> I like simple "\n"s.
>>> Modern transports such as HTTP will transmit the file with a length and
>>> encoding information.  FTP can be used in a similar manner if set to
>>> "binary".  Telnet isn't really about transferring files, without escapes
>>> to [xyz]modem land.  SMTP can deal with base64-encoded binary just fine.
>>> My point here: the protocol used to transmit the file has almost nothing
>>> to do with the format we pick.  If you use a protocol that mangles the
>>> file in transit, or configure a protocol to do so, then you shouldn't be
>>> surprised if the signature doesn't match.
>>> On 10/28/14, 6:44 PM, "Robert Sparks" <rjsparks at nostrum.com> wrote:
>>>> Section 4.3 of -04 spends a couple of paragraphs talking about having
>>>> different EOL markers on different OSes, and what some transports might
>>>> want to see. I think this is confusing what the RFC Editor will produce
>>>> and publish with what people might find lying around after it's been
>>>> moved off the RFC Editor's website.
>>>> I think this document should specify exactly what the plaintext
>>>> publication format will contain (and what will be signable).
>>>> I _don't_ think the plan is to publish versions with the various line
>>>> ending styles. Unless that's wrong, please pick one and say what it is.
>>>> It's ok to warn people that their own tools might change the line
>>>> endings for them, but don't make it look like the variants are part of
>>>> what's published.
>>>> RjS
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list