IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 02 December 2016 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F31129486 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:49:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.984
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
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 c4CdCPc3oVRR for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83057129482 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:49:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D305B801EB; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:49:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6CF9B801EB for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:49:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IihZR0SFzSvk for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x230.google.com (mail-pg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::230]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D8CBB801EA for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 3so112569184pgd.0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 15:49:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PzDEVjt4AoXnGTNOJi1h5J5k7g7oSgKDjwqt/n77+PM=; b=kzFdRR/xWBQF9twKfcNd3WuE3iwEYex6cWUW+AHeX4j9iFAMj/R0tbH+dGSCYYr/Hd F/NA8TTL4asd5KpsHCOvF3OmMhzcfeBKn7NitiQR6cQSs48zknDkxa7poz6K3ZShAT56 zGj3RUfaKQNFYwzqlbhCTfVH5TCIK00onBoREPSQYznLRKa6ZtYYZCI5DZxDDTOoteNz G5E18G52T0VCsearWSmko1EpD1wHK5GKTNtlk6Xhoe14nimXTTutPusCI1fXiu7KaTD8 dWDE1BirpMDsLHvFzqXzaTluSet2F/PoWb3dADQ5aByoXOHr9jdjC/plKR17dtMP/ZjZ Rqhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=PzDEVjt4AoXnGTNOJi1h5J5k7g7oSgKDjwqt/n77+PM=; b=iaF4BrGBjrbkWHZmJJmNymZMEPucSQkhUxDFItthBpm0SrDJSEyOjdi2plMDB9pS4K fyO0E/SpvuPOA9H/cN2oHyvfdYgrmB/6UdgC81GdEq3/AkMsJN55Az5uxMx8dZSXpadf G/+zpd4wmN0mmbRRv3JYDfqC7ZT1JikUzPN+a1PIPgNnRo7GxswgrYQjJv/bDRZcXw3H 2z0S11WR0UFWScbgeNewX89VM3AMGZMmqYDU+q+rbe6tJ4yTrGrfIn3t60I54ICzbQJ3 YNLk6+xciW9F0Rw5PWKBffwrf6+gfK1V8+iyxqioyf5rMgk8e4XDj4vk0YRCQ6nzg1lH uVuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01N+oG6TKNI+ec3DHfpM96NAEXRjxK1qX0ujUpFNiWX9OiUxS8o3dKKP3B6rSHB9Q==
X-Received: by 10.84.210.46 with SMTP id z43mr101673585plh.175.1480722563561; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 15:49:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] (169.227.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.227.169]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n25sm10182623pfi.33.2016.12.02.15.49.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Dec 2016 15:49:22 -0800 (PST)
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <20161202221919.7465.qmail@ary.lan> <e46334f6-3e0b-809e-8a5f-1a3784ebf588@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612021739540.55231@ary.qy>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <3d1d11ca-86d1-4e84-2819-cb92ce9b2e71@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:49:31 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612021739540.55231@ary.qy>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Request for feedback: the new CSS
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 03/12/2016 12:07, John R Levine wrote:
> PS:
> 
>>> For that matter, I'd argue that since the XML is the canonical format,
>>> the XML code markings clearly label the code and we're done.
>>
>> Yes, that *ought* to be the case, but I would much prefer to see the Trust legal
>> provisions modified accordingly. It's going to be complicated enough persuading
>> lawyers and judges that XML is more canonical than plain text, without also
>> expecting them to re-interpret the Trust text as well.
> 
> Actually, it works the other way.  If a lawyer wants an authenticated copy 
> of an IETF document, he writes to us (or if he's dumb he subpoenas us) and 
> we send him a boilerplate response.  See for example what we sent to Sony 
> and Samsung:
> 
> https://iaoc.ietf.org/subpoenas.html
> 
> So if we say the XML is the definitive version, that's it.

Good to know, although of course there might be a corner case somewhere.

     Brian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email