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

Scott O. Bradner sob at sobco.com
Mon Dec 5 16:35:38 PST 2016


Jorge pointed out that, at least for the foreseeable future, the courts will be seeing paper printouts
of the documents, whatever their formats so the question of “text” is not likely to be an issue

Scott


> On Dec 5, 2016, at 2:40 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
> 
> I have asked Jorge what he thinks 
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Dec 5, 2016, at 2:32 PM, John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I understand that. I think there's a broader issue though. Throughout the TLP the word "text" is used to refer to
>>> the contents of an IETF document. IANAL but don't we need some words that will prevent
>>> ambiguity when the canonical form changes from plain text?
>> 
>> IANAL, but no.  The TLP is in effect a contract, and contracts are
>> interpreted by humans, not by computers.
>> 
>> R's,
>> John
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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