Rich, What is missing is a page-image format (I personally don't care if it is restricted to ASCII or uses UTF-8 coding or not, but believe the latter would be better and easier to achieve with xml2rfc v3) with headers, footers, and pagination compatible with what we have been using/ living with for the last 40-odd years. IETF list added back in because, IMO, part of what got us to the point where we are having this discussion now rather than three-plus years ago was that a number of discussions and decisions occurred on the rfc-interest list without adequate information, warning, and serious attempts to get informed consensus among those who use and work with RFCs rather than just those willing to endure sometimes very detailed discussions on that list including, occasionally, the tone and aggressiveness of some of them. That short enough? john --On Sunday, December 1, 2019 03:10 +0000 "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The holiday season is upcoming, the new-format cutover is very > recent, and we just had an IETF meeting. > > Maybe cut folks a little slack and just briefly (!!!) point > out what is missing? > > Ietf moved to bcc; rfc-interest added.
