In article <e5ca2a0e-53f9-8679-a7cd-093d6b2319be@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >It appears that having the canonical format of RFCs be a format other >than one that people actually use, has "interesting" consequences. For >example, anyone can generate RFCs in their own preferred format, using >whatever typeface, pagination, TOC format, references format, etc. they >wish, That's a feature. If you don't like the format, you can pick another. If you don't like any of the existing formats, you can write or adapt tools to create any format you want. If, say, you want line printer pages for A4 paper, you can have them. >and it's difficult to tell (either by looking or comparison with >the copy from the RFC Editor's site) whether such an RFC is genuine. Aw, c'mon. If that's a problem, take the canonical XML and run it through your favorite formatter yourself to get a fresh authentic copy. >I think it would also be "interesting" if the preferred source for RFCs >became a site other than rfc-editor.org. (Which, for all I know, >might already be the case.) If you google an RFC number you'll generally find links to tools.ietf.org and datatracker.ietf.org ahead of rfc-editor.org, which has been the case for a long time. R's, John
