IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 22:43 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 82E9D129526 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:43:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 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=-0.001, 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 sA9MAD44X7qB for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:43:43 -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 C4B4B124281 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:43:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BAB7B8025E; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:43:43 -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 827BFB8025E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:43:42 -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 m2Q8qgCJGg-d for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 867A3B8025B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v1GMhZXH042709 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:43:36 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Craig Partridge <craig@tereschau.net>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <CAHQj4CdfLdkreGx8SFXwOJP62cZHQ4t3oU8uaN44PYgrTXKqhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <1cb10826-9a9f-6916-8925-005139c1d9b0@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:43:30 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CdfLdkreGx8SFXwOJP62cZHQ4t3oU8uaN44PYgrTXKqhg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 2/16/17 16:12, Craig Partridge wrote:
> I'm with John.  There are many good reasons to use paper (such as 
> we've successfully used it as
> an archival technology for roughly 2000 years -- show me a digital 
> system with a similar track record).

Or a computer printout that old. I have laser printouts from college on 
which the toner has largely detached from the page -- and I'm not even 
into three digits old, much less four.

We haven't priced out hiring monks to transcribe RFCs onto vellum, so 
the performance of 2000-year-old manuscripts is hardly relevant.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email