IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Mon, 05 December 2016 19:41 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 7E6081299C8 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:41:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7EtfiTrKXmyE for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:40:59 -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 CA1C8129597 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860F3B806A3; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:40:59 -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 91FDEB806A3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:40:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 TszCive59Ai4 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2055CB8064F for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 11:40:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485613457FE6; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:40:56 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZXQaz441kx3w; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:40:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB8EF3457FD3; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:40:54 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161205193246.24386.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:40:54 -0500
Message-Id: <751B147C-3F6D-45FF-BCA0-557F2C2CBB4C@sobco.com>
References: <20161205193246.24386.qmail@ary.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
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>

I have asked Jorge what he thinks 

Scott

> On Dec 5, 2016, at 2:32 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
>> I understand that. I think there's a broader issue though. Throughout the TLP the word "text" is used to refer to
>> the contents of an IETF document. IANAL but don't we need some words that will prevent
>> ambiguity when the canonical form changes from plain text?
> 
> IANAL, but no.  The TLP is in effect a contract, and contracts are
> interpreted by humans, not by computers.
> 
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

_______________________________________________
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