[rfc-i] Request for feedback: the new CSS

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Fri Dec 2 15:07:01 PST 2016


PS:

>> For that matter, I'd argue that since the XML is the canonical format,
>> the XML code markings clearly label the code and we're done.
>
> Yes, that *ought* to be the case, but I would much prefer to see the Trust legal
> provisions modified accordingly. It's going to be complicated enough persuading
> lawyers and judges that XML is more canonical than plain text, without also
> expecting them to re-interpret the Trust text as well.

Actually, it works the other way.  If a lawyer wants an authenticated copy 
of an IETF document, he writes to us (or if he's dumb he subpoenas us) and 
we send him a boilerplate response.  See for example what we sent to Sony 
and Samsung:

https://iaoc.ietf.org/subpoenas.html

So if we say the XML is the definitive version, that's it.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list