Re: [art] New RFCs text formatting

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Rich,

What is missing is a page-image format (I personally don't care
if it is restricted to ASCII or uses UTF-8 coding or not, but
believe the latter would be better and easier to achieve with
xml2rfc v3) with headers, footers, and pagination compatible
with what we have been using/ living with for the last 40-odd
years.

IETF list added back in because, IMO, part of what got us to the
point where we are having this discussion now rather than
three-plus years ago was that a number of discussions and
decisions occurred on the rfc-interest list without adequate
information, warning, and serious attempts to get informed
consensus among those who use and work with RFCs rather than
just those willing to endure sometimes very detailed discussions
on that list including, occasionally, the tone and
aggressiveness of some of them.

That short enough?
   john


--On Sunday, December 1, 2019 03:10 +0000 "Salz, Rich"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> The holiday season is upcoming, the new-format cutover is very
> recent, and we just had an IETF meeting.
> 
> Maybe cut folks a little slack and just briefly (!!!) point
> out what is missing?
> 
> Ietf moved to bcc; rfc-interest added.