Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Fri, 03 July 2009 17:16 UTC
Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 159C028C2F2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.386
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.213, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ShiRvffRBPkC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A6128C315 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,343,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="44335855"
Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2009 17:16:01 +0000
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n63HG1A7022272; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 19:16:01 +0200
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n63HG1Bt005471; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 17:16:01 GMT
Received: from dhcp-gpk02-vlan300-64-103-65-10.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id n63HG0D11476; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:16:00 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4A4E3CD0.2020602@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:16:00 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
References: <C671B2EF.2EB7%stefan@aaa-sec.com> <000a01c9fa9f$cbc996a0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <4A4BEFDD.6070008@gmail.com> <48E7911F78327A449A9FB9563766728611D572E5@exrad4.ad.rad.co.il> <B1268053-5659-4E0A-85FD-DC72404DFDD3@muada.com> <517bf110907020746q527dda57j1fa402e657f246a5@mail.gmail.com> <4A4CCCD3.7030501@cisco.com> <p06250105c672e4c9a55c@[75.145.176.242]> <70ED21D2-1DF5-49F2-8A85-A425AC015D1E@muada.com> <p06250107c673e4baa234@[75.145.176.242]>
In-Reply-To: <p06250107c673e4baa234@[75.145.176.242]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=321; t=1246641361; x=1247505361; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; z=From:=20Stewart=20Bryant=20<stbryant@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20RFC=20archival=20format,=20=09was=3A=20 Re=3A=20More=20liberal=20draft=20formatting=0A=20=09standard s=20required |Sender:=20; bh=ICPMmAd2uoI8qD1d4hbhQwlb9uxQnjQDRpPsIX0iPsc=; b=OP+6AZ2eulCW69xXpIqqCHBW1apckQ59EunBF5Qlsb1deipxAvwnTcyCyA scB2eiu33HAs3VIQCKUKtXxBmHGsi29ehT8iNIhF4EHiWKsNsC64ol2X7mfT pZSwD0kfUp;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
Cc: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, tbray@textuality.com, Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF@core3.amsl.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:16:48 -0000
Pete > Getting rid of a page-layout format as our authoritative form is > primary. Using characters that do not occur in English is next down > the list. Everything else is extra. Surely maximizing the probability of correct understanding by the reader is primary. Everything else is just a mechanism. Stewart
- More liberal draft formatting standards required Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… John C Klensin
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Tim Bray
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… David Morris
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Paul Hoffman
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… james woodyatt
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Melinda Shore
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… james woodyatt
- RE: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Yaakov Stein
- RE: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Yaakov Stein
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Stefan Santesson
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Theodore Tso
- RE: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Tony Hain
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Donald Eastlake
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Martin Rex
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Stefan Santesson
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Randy Presuhn
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Melinda Shore
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Julian Reschke
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Douglas Otis
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Stefan Santesson
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Henrik Levkowetz
- RE: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Yaakov Stein
- RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Yaakov Stein
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Doug Ewell
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Julian Reschke
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Tim Bray
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Stewart Bryant
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Ted Hardie
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Julian Reschke
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Douglas Otis
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Stewart Bryant
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Pete Resnick
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… ned+ietf
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Stefan Winter
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Stewart Bryant
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Stewart Bryant
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Martin Rex
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Julian Reschke
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… John Leslie
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Pete Resnick
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Stewart Bryant
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Stewart Bryant
- Two different threads (was: More liberal draft fo… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Dave CROCKER
- Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format John Levine
- RE: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Yaakov Stein
- RE: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Yaakov Stein
- Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3? Carsten Bormann
- XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Doug Ewell
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Melinda Shore
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Dave Nelson
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Carsten Bormann
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Colin Perkins
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Tim Bray
- RE: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Paul Hoffman
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Melinda Shore
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Doug Ewell
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Elwyn Davies
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… ned+ietf
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… James M. Polk
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… James M. Polk
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Patrik Fältström
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Colin Perkins
- RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Stefan Santesson
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… ned+ietf
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Tim Bray
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Doug Ewell
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Tim Bray
- RE: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Yaakov Stein
- RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Yaakov Stein
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3? Lars Eggert
- xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: R… Lars Eggert
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… james woodyatt
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Bill McQuillan
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Julian Reschke
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Melinda Shore
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Dave Cridland
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Julian Reschke
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Stewart Bryant
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Stewart Bryant
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Julian Reschke
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Shane Kerr
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Julian Reschke
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Lou Berger
- Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3? Andrew Sullivan
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Livingood, Jason
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Bob Braden
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Eric Rosen
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Paul Hoffman
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Eric Rosen
- Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3? Carsten Bormann
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Julian Reschke
- Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3? Tony Hansen
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Dave CROCKER
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Bob Braden
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Russ Housley
- Re: XML2RFC must die, and so must everything else John Levine
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Martin Rex
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Martin Rex
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Julian Reschke
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Julian Reschke
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Martin Rex
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Julian Reschke
- Re: [xml2rfc] Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3? Julian Reschke
- RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Tony Hain
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Tim Bray
- Re: [xml2rfc] Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3? Lars Eggert
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… John C Klensin
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… John C Klensin
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Julian Reschke
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Julian Reschke
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Doug Ewell
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Julian Reschke
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Tony Hansen
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Julian Reschke
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… John C Klensin
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Tim Bray
- RE: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Dave Nelson
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Mark Andrews
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Mark Andrews
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Wes Hardaker
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… John C Klensin
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Julian Reschke
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Stefan Winter
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Mark Andrews
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, wa… Julian Reschke
- RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Yaakov Stein
- RE: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Dave Nelson
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… John C Klensin
- Re: More liberal draft formatting standards requi… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Russ White
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Dave CROCKER
- RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Yaakov Stein
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thre… Russ White
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Sabahattin Gucukoglu
- Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal dr… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3? Iljitsch van Beijnum