Although I, too, am tired of seeing this discussion arise again every few years, it occurs to me that there is one new possibility that exists now, but did not exist in previous incarnations of this discussion: Open Document Format. I expect that ODF is still too young and immature for use in archival standards documents today. But it is worth pointing out that IF (a big if) ODF succeeds in becoming a widely-used standard, it will have nearly all of the right properties for a long term IETF archival format. I know this stirs up yet another batch of hornets, but it might really be the right solution in the long term. -- Nathaniel >> The document does not specify a particular variety of PDF. There are > many. > > This comment has been made many times, and answered equally many. > One of the objects of the experiment os to determine the details of the > PDF to be used. > PDF/A has been suggested. > >> The document does not specify the permitted embedded data formats. >> PDF allows raster and vector images, JavaScript, form validation, > fonts, and much more. > > Once again, this has been discussed to death on this list. > > >> PDF and some possible embedded data formats are patent encumbered. >> There are IPR disclosures available. > > Read Adobe's RFC 3667 disclosure. They grant a royalty-free license > to anyone who wants to write software to manipulate PDFs, > as long as they are compliant to the specification. > Sounds sufficient to my (IPR trained) eyes. > >> The document incorrectly states that RFC 1119 is available in > "PDF/PostScript", when it is only available in PostScript. > > Go to the RFC editor page and serach for 1119. > You will get the following screen: > > Choose a file format > Text rfc1119.txt > PDF rfc1119.pdf > PS rfc1119.ps > > The filenames all have simple links to files, nothing is generated > on-the-fly. > > I agree that clicking on the txt version gives an incorrect message that > the file is only available in ps. > >> The authors state that "commercial" software does support ASCII well. >> Their stated favorite editor, Microsoft Word, does not and will not > support PDF: > > As one of the authors I hereby state that Word is not my favorite editor > (if it is an editor at all). However, the clear intent was that IF the > IETF > does not want to use a commercially available tool, then the next > possibility > is to use a well-defined format. > >> The process outlined in this document is completely inappropriate for > an archival document series, for the reasons outlined above. >> Those were just the glaringly obvious concerns. There are probably > more. > > What seems to be glaringly obvious is that the same reasons are brought > up time and time again, > as if for the first time. I assume that the strategy is to bore the > authors of this draft into submission > (or in this case into retraction of a submission). > > Y(J)S > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf