Re: Last Call: Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP

[Geoff Huston <[e-mail]>]

>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
>[e-mail] or [e-mail] mailing lists by 2003-4-8.
>
>Files can be obtained via 
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt

I would like to make four comments on this document in response to this 
last call


1.  Section 2.4 reads:

    2.4 Publication Format(s)
  [...]
   If there is a Postscript and/or PDF version of the document (see Section 
2.4), the author should inform the RFC Editor at the time of submission of 
the ASCII version.

The self reference to section 2.4 from within 2.4 is cute in a recursive 
sense, but not strictly necessary or useful.



2. section 2.5

"When a .ps version is published, the RFC Editor will also publish a 
corresponding .pdf version by using the 'distill' utility."

I'm sure that the RFC Editor(s) would agree that all software is transient, 
and a reference to "the 'distill' utility" should be accompanied by a 
reference to its authoritative source so that readers may clearly 
understand what is being referred to here.

3. 3.2 PostScript Format Rules

Not all the world uses imperial measurement units. It would be reasonable 
to provide the metric equivalent when using "inches" to describe various 
dimensions.

4. 4.10 and 4.11

In both cases there are/will be  RFCs describing guidelines for security 
and IANA considerations,
and this document should reference them as informative references. I refer 
to draft-iab-sec-cons-03.txt and RFC 2434. Consideration should be given to 
publishing the draft-iab-sec-cons document concurrently with this document.

thanks,

    Geoff Huston