On 11/30/19 8:24 PM, John Levine wrote:
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.
In some ways I agree that it is a feature. But it may also bring some
undesirable consequences with it.
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.
On several occasions I've been asked to verify the authenticity of old
documents (including some Usenet posts, some RFCs, and some academic
papers) for patent litigation purposes. Sometimes what I've been asked
to do is verify a document that has already been used as an exhibit in a
prior filing, so it's important that the version of the document that
was used in the exhibit be verified. If the exhibit was of a plain
text RFC, it's pretty easy to do - download the same plain text RFC from
rfc-editor.org, verify its date (say using FTP to the file server, and
perhaps via other means, like an archived email announcement that was
sent concurrent with RFC publication), and optically compare the two
documents.
But on several occasions when I've been asked to do this, the exhibit
was printed-out HTML and the document that could be readily
authenticated (the one that the HTML was derived from) was in a
different format. It can be tricky to explain the differences in a way
that is convincing to a jury.
I may be more sensitive to this issue than some because I've had to do
this several times in 2019. But having the old canonical format for
RFCs also be the one that was most widely read, was indeed a feature.
Keith
