Re: [art] New RFCs text formatting

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 01 December 2019 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44C9120834 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 17:24:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=Y8oXtGTT; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=H4nhI3Nb
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ni7riHOs4jrH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 17:24:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C3A712082F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 17:24:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 41851 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2019 01:24:49 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=a377.5de31661.k1911; i=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=rplKa2Z+V7cLt9I7SW23blJX54AFTPPOR2RIB6tU2VA=; b=Y8oXtGTTcoN/4lLJFjPcRpsx4YwPbvrclTk6Qpvp8kdJijno7+mVRRCHJmD9RdXmOOtUAfRvsTJRMee+ZoayxvL+n6IXOGJwUueY7HAfw34WZ0BQTuOC3ClqQgVWgmW13whpnsL1SPr590enRSOaMdE2U196Wyx+tSb9Yp9TUGa2gPKtBgJ2xUsgS/LhP62fCP9LKt8fajZaOXnHXkpILA+EDXdHSIUcRzPd16W0ZDlrWRy6BfFsu7p4FHxvlHep
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=a377.5de31661.k1911; olt=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=rplKa2Z+V7cLt9I7SW23blJX54AFTPPOR2RIB6tU2VA=; b=H4nhI3Nbbck3QH21hAsjvpOe/B8ANG0WCCW/NmzmhFPq1Pm8peRBVykNmjXKjkf262ZvkM9iVCWHhHLh78SqR/QL5WuP4oxk3WyY3gtUmEYFT4/rKFrywNg6zN5IKGasc3DU6Azp99o/7dZ0t8EgbUeykGe0kHvkNIpOEcwhfKD07VHGROhOx5faSw4n8xzPgjnP5MYhPdC36+848p82V7HnL+WlEP9IeyGO6UB+JNVFCOOoXIiub0nWs570SA+e
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, printer@iecc.com) via TCP6; 01 Dec 2019 01:24:49 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1FA60FF1ABE; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 20:24:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 20:24:48 -0500
Message-Id: <20191201012449.1FA60FF1ABE@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: moore@network-heretics.com
Subject: Re: [art] New RFCs text formatting
In-Reply-To: <e5ca2a0e-53f9-8679-a7cd-093d6b2319be@network-heretics.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WVIj5S0UtpPwb-ZHErWy1fZX06g>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 01 Dec 2019 01:24:53 -0000

In article <e5ca2a0e-53f9-8679-a7cd-093d6b2319be@network-heretics.com> you write:
>It appears that having the canonical format of RFCs be a format other 
>than one that people actually use, has "interesting" consequences.   For 
>example, anyone can generate RFCs in their own preferred format, using 
>whatever typeface, pagination, TOC format, references format, etc. they 
>wish, 

That's a feature.  If you don't like the format, you can pick another.
If you don't like any of the existing formats, you can write or adapt
tools to create any format you want.  If, say, you want line printer
pages for A4 paper, you can have them.

>and it's difficult to tell (either by looking or comparison with 
>the copy from the RFC Editor's site) whether such an RFC is genuine.

Aw, c'mon.  If that's a problem, take the canonical XML and run it through
your favorite formatter yourself to get a fresh authentic copy.

>I think it would also be "interesting" if the preferred source for RFCs 
>became a site other than rfc-editor.org.    (Which, for all I know, 
>might already be the case.)

If you google an RFC number you'll generally find links to
tools.ietf.org and datatracker.ietf.org ahead of rfc-editor.org, which
has been the case for a long time.

R's,
John