Dave, It looks - to me - as if Bob's post is in response to Bob's own earlier post. That should make it difficult to construe his more recent post as an "attack." At worst, it's a quick response indirectly aimed at another quick response. One issue with to quickly responding to Bob's earlier questions is that the XML version - as Christian has already said - cannot be the authoritative/normative version of an RFC. I would qualify that someone by allowing that an XML version cannot be authoritative/normative unless it is completely self contained. And, by self contained, I mean there MUST be an absolute, positively concrete guarantee that every time we process it, it will always produce exactly the same text. If that is the conditions under which it may be useful, then it is simpler to retain the text. The reason for this - as someone else pointed out - is that the version on which people have agreed is the text version that they read at the time when they agreed. Even if the text version was directly produced at that time from XML, it is that text that they read at the time that they agreed to. An analogy of why this is an issue can be seen in why it is that a pre-merge version of a slew of nearly identical contracts has no legal value - even if archived with an exact image of the data used in the merge. Only a signed contract has the enforceability of a signed contract. -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] --> On Behalf Of Dave Crocker --> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 3:59 PM --> To: Bob Braden --> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art) --> --> --> --> Bob Braden wrote: --> > It is easy to give glib answers to the following --> questions, ignoring --> > many detailed issues. Easy, but suspect. --> --> --> Bob, it is also easy to ask a set questions and then --> dismiss answers to --> them. Easy but suspect. --> --> First of all, if you did not feel that your questions were --> sufficient, it --> would have been nice for you to have said so. Evidently --> you were looking --> for something other than responses, but there is no way to --> tell what. --> --> Second of all, if you feel that simple answers to your --> directed questions is --> not sufficient, perhaps you will respond in a manner that --> encourages --> exploration, rather than attack. --> --> d/ --> --> -- --> --> Dave Crocker --> Brandenburg InternetWorking --> <http://bbiw.net> --> --> _______________________________________________ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@xxxxxxxx --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf