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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Dec 2 15:49:31 PST 2016

On 03/12/2016 12:07, John R Levine wrote:
> 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.

Good to know, although of course there might be a corner case somewhere.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list