IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Tue, 06 December 2016 00:35 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 5B4DD12963A for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 16:35:54 -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 mfSC2mgWUg1x for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 16:35:52 -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 9EC2912962B for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 16:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE9DB8007F; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 16:35:52 -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 B883EB8007F for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 16:35:50 -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 D3T7wUEdfJQY for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 16:35:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50A5CB8007E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 16:35:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D32B345ED77; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 19:35:47 -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 mExwqHMWyeN9; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 19:35:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from golem.sobco.com (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6EF5345ED5C; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 19:35:41 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <751B147C-3F6D-45FF-BCA0-557F2C2CBB4C@sobco.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 19:35:38 -0500
Message-Id: <BECB977D-8B30-488B-9517-D562C85129A6@sobco.com>
References: <20161205193246.24386.qmail@ary.lan> <751B147C-3F6D-45FF-BCA0-557F2C2CBB4C@sobco.com>
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="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Jorge pointed out that, at least for the foreseeable future, the courts will be seeing paper printouts
of the documents, whatever their formats so the question of “text” is not likely to be an issue

Scott


> On Dec 5, 2016, at 2:40 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
> 
> 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

_______________________________________________
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