Subject: Writing Internet Drafts on a Macintosh

From: Bora Akyol <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:50:36 -0800

I am trying (trying is the key word) to write Internet drafts on a 
powerbook using MS Word with the template from the IETF web-site, 
then using a PC to convert Word to text per the instructions.

Is there a better way to write IDs on a Mac?

Also, why isn't HTML an accepted format for Internet Drafts, pretty 
much everyone on the planet should be able to read an HTML file (even 
using Lynx on a terminal)?

Regards,

Bora Akyol

---

From: V Guruprasad <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:02:46 -0500

Hi,

> Is there a better way to write IDs on a Mac?

I personally prefer LaTeX because it vastly simplifies cross-references
within the text. LaTeX should be platform-neutral, but the dvitty driver
given is ancient.

I had to tweak the dvitty code a bit to get the import of ascii artwork
almost right. The only other things that needed slight touchup were the
equations. Perhaps I should post the dvitty patch somewhere...

> using Lynx on a terminal)?

and that goes for pdf too, given that the irs uses it too :)

-prasad.

---

From: [email-masked] (David C Lawrence)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:04:12 -0500 (EST)

> and that goes for pdf too, given that the irs uses it too :)

It isn't accepted because flat, plain ASCII text is by far the most
portable format on the planet and beyond.  For example, there are
plenty of IETFers who still read the drafts in email, and still use
email clients that don't handle HTML natively.

It is easiest to work with when you are on a "dumb" device.  Pretty
much any program that can handle text at all can handle unadorned
ASCII, but HTML can be much more of a nuisance.

Also, when you say "read an HTML file", what HTML do you mean?
-//IETF//DTD HTML Strict Level 0//EN//2.0?  
-//W3C//ENTITIES Full Latin 1//EN//HTML?
-//SQ//DTD HTML 2.0 HoTMetaL + extensions//EN?

Once you decide on that, how do you make sure everyone's favorite
authoring tools are putting out compliant documents?  Sure, a verifier
can be run on them.  For some of these tools, however, getting them to
generate a document that is compliant with a particular document type
can be a frustrating experience when the user is told the document
won't be accepted if it isn't compliant.

PDF is an even bigger headache.  Even many mail clients that purport
to handle HTML natively do not handle PDF, and operating systems
mostly don't even ship with a viewer.  Forget about trying to look at
PDF on a dumb device or process it with standard text tools like
Unix's "grep".  And how widespread are freely available PDF authoring
tools?

Finally, the technology used by the USA's IRS (nationwide taxing
authority) should not be looked to as a model for the IETF.  They have
a very specific set of requirements for their documents -- that forms
appear in an especially consistent way to ease the processing of the
tremendous volume of paperwork that they process.  While a consistent
outline is important for IETF documents, the same degree of precision
in reproduction is not needed for us.

---

From: Rich Sena <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:39:51 -0500 (EST)

Bora - use BBEDIT from Bare Bones http://www.barebones.com/ it is by far
the most versatile editing package and geared for taks such as that...

-- 
Rich Sena - [email-masked]
ThickNET Consulting
"On the way to understanding; you understand, and forget."

---

From: Rich Sena <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:47:24 -0500 (EST)

Sorry for the repost...

Bora there is a free version to give it a whirl:

http://www.barebones.com/products/bbedit_lite.html

---

From: "Scott Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:49:32 -0500

Just write them in plain text, nroff or not, using a decent mode-aware
text editor like Alpha (http://alpha.olm.net).  It's also a pretty good
raw HTML editor.

---

From: Taylor Salman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:16:55 -0500

ASCII text shouldn't be accepted because:

Pen and paper is by far the most portable format on the planet and
beyond.  For example, there are more people on this planet that have
access to a pen and paper than a computer.  Heck, my grandmother
refuses to buy a computer even though she can afford it, but she can sure
write a mean letter.  Besides, even if you don't have a pen and
paper, you can usually find a scrap and a pen that's been left behind by
someone.

Pen and paper is much easier when you're working with a "dumb"
person.  Pretty much any person can read text on a piece of
paper,  but have you ever tried to get someone to read e-mail who
has never seen a computer before?

And when you say ASCII, which font do you mean:

Webdings

Wingdings

Symbol

(Let's see who can translate that...)

At least when I write a letter, that is the letter than ends up on the
paper.  I mean sure, you could read the text and try to figure out
whether or not the symbols on the screen are intelligible, but how much
of a hassle is that?

Let's not even talk about EBCDIC.  I mean does anyone even use that
anymore?

Finally, the technology used by the various representatives to the IETF
should not be looked as a model for the IETF.  They have a specific
set of requirements that they have for their communications related to
their employment or personal lives.  The IETF should be making their
documents readable by anyone who wants to comment, whether they own a
computer or not.

All in good fun...  ;-)

Taylor

portable format on the planet and beyond.  For example, there
are

It is easiest to work with when you are on a "dumb"
device.  Pretty

Also, when you say "read an HTML file", what HTML do you
mean?

authoring tools are putting out compliant documents?  Sure, a
verifier

can be run on them.  For some of these tools, however, getting them
to

generate a document that is compliant with a particular document
type

PDF is an even bigger headache.  Even many mail clients that
purport

mostly don't even ship with a viewer.  Forget about trying to look
at

Unix's "grep".  And how widespread are freely available
PDF authoring

tools?

authority) should not be looked to as a model for the IETF.  They
have

a very specific set of requirements for their documents -- that
forms

appear in an especially consistent way to ease the processing of
the

tremendous volume of paperwork that they process.  While a
consistent

outline is important for IETF documents, the same degree of
precision

*****************************************************************************

P. Taylor
Salman
OPNET Technologies, Inc.

Manager, Market
Research
7255 Woodmont Avenue

Phone:
202-364-4700x2297
Suite 250

Fax:
202-364-8551
Bethesda, MD 20814-7904

Cell:
202-427-3319
www.opnet.com

******************************************************************************

---

From: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:26:08 -0500

[Bora Akyol: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:50:36PM -0800]
> Is there a better way to write IDs on a Mac?

I recently had my first experience using the setup described by
Marshall Rose in rfc2629 (Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML) and was
very pleased. You should be able to create the XML base in Word (or
whatever) and use the referenced tools to produce both conforming text
and html from the same base. If you can't run the tools on your
platform there is a website that you just submit the XML to and it
will generate either text or HTML as output.

-P

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 06:57:14 -0800

> Also, why isn't HTML an accepted format for Internet Drafts

just a sec.  traditionally, we have this discussion every six months.  it
has not been six months yet.

randy

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:58:22 -0500

> and that goes for pdf too, given that the irs uses it too :)

I'd like to see us accept HTML as an alternate format for I-Ds,
and perhaps eventually RFCs.  One problem is that HTML is not
in reality as portable as we would like. For instance, there
are a lot of tools that generate bogus HTML or HTML with 
proprietary extensions; the user of those tools is generally
unaware that the HTML produced by those tools is polluted.
This also means that the same document can be rendered quite
differently by different viewers to the point that important
portions of the document are unreadable  - hardly a desirable 
trait for specifications that are candiates for standardization.

I think we'd need to restrict HTML to a subset that really is 
portable - e.g. no frames, scripts, or bogus characters such 
as are all-too-commonly generated by certain vendors, and no 
reliance on relatively new features of HTML.  Tables should 
probably be avoided except when absolutely necessary.  

OTOH, if we wanted to include images (and we probably would) then 
perhaps MHTML should also be acceptable, and we would need to 
decide which image format(s) were permissable.  Unfortunately MHTML 
is not yet so widely supported.

So the Secretariat would need tools to identify and reject bogus
HTML or MHTML, and authors would need tools to convert whatever
garbage was produced by their HTML editors or translators into
the HTML subset acceptable for I-Ds.  The Secretariat would also need
to arrange for the I-D processing system and the various I-D 
mirrors to accept HTML documents.  Finally, we'd want to be able
to convert the HTML documents to high-quality plain text more-or-less
conforming to current I-D or RFC conventions. 

None of these problems is insurmountable, but as yet nobody has 
put all of the pieces together and worked out the details with
the Secretariat and/or RFC editor.  (hint: with an IETF meeting 
approaching, now is probably NOT a good time to start trying to do this)  

There's a mailing list to discuss the issues associated with putting 
RFCs (and therefore also I-Ds) in HTML - 
to subscribe send mail to [email-masked]
It's been dormant for awhile, but perhaps there's more interest now.

PDF on the other hand is lousy for small displays.  I would 
apply the same restrictions to PDF as are currently in place 
for PostScript - it's fine as a secondary format, but should 
be used as a primary format only when absolutely necessary. 
(which is to say, essentially never)

However, PDF versions of existing RFCs (rendered in Courier) would be 
useful for folks who are saddled with brain-damaged operating systems
that (as shipped) lack the ability to properly print plain ASCII 
text delimited by form feeds.  

Keith

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:23:15 +0000

In message <[email-masked]>, Taylor Salman typed:

 >>ASCII text shouldn't be accepted because:<br>

 >>beyond.

i disagree - 

i) the americans spent a lot of money on spaceworthy pens,
but the russians showed that PENCILS are fine

ii) paper burns at farenheit 451 (ref: burroughs, '63, truffaut '68], 
this many IETF meetings generate enough heat to ignite any draft being 
discussed if presented in this format

so we need to use pencil and (unprocessed) wood

j.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:23:50 -0500

> and that goes for pdf too, given that the irs uses it too :)

Drafts become RFCs, and RFCs live forever.  PDF, or even HTML, is not
likely to last more than another 5-10 years.

Also, PDF would not be greppable.  I have a robot listening to
ietf-announce, to let me know when somebody posts a Draft related to topics
I'm interested in; that would be difficult or impossible if the Drafts were
in PDF.

--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"The struggle is always worthwhile, if the end  |
[email-masked]|be worthwhile and the means honorable;          |
|                |foreknowledge of defeat is not sufficient reason|
|                |to withdraw from the contest." -- Adron         |
|                |e'Kieron, by Steven Brust                       |
\=================================================================/

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:59:50 -0800 (PST)

% 
% > > Also, why isn't HTML an accepted format for Internet Drafts, pretty 
% > > much everyone on the planet should be able to read an HTML file (even 
% > > using Lynx on a terminal)?
% > 
% > and that goes for pdf too, given that the irs uses it too :)
% 
% I'd like to see us accept HTML as an alternate format for I-Ds,
% and perhaps eventually RFCs.  One problem is that HTML is not
% in reality as portable as we would like. 

	re HTML/PDF:   cut&paste?
		       text search?
		       ease of conversion to other formats?

	or... why even bother with these incremental technologies?

	XML has also been offered up.  I'm not persuaded that any
	of these three are superiour to ASCII.  And there is nothing
	preventing one from taking the authoritative archive and
	doing the conversion to foramt'o'the day. A number of folks
	have done so.  But the authoritative base is still and should
	remain (for now) ASCII.

--bill

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:17:35 +0000 (GMT)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Keith Moore wrote:

> and perhaps eventually RFCs. 

Consider the number of people now using the Microsoft Word template to
generate I-Ds.

Consider the kind of HTML that Microsoft Word generates.

You want minimal markup and maximum human readability for
longevity/permanence; even clean HTML simply embeds too much markup to
be useful and clear.

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:23:07 +0100

>so we need to use pencil and (unprocessed) wood

have away with all these incendiary materials!

bring a stone tablet and a chisel!

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

---

From: Stephen McHenry <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:05:42 -0800

>ASCII, but HTML can be much more of a nuisance.

Am I the only one that finds a certain bit of irony in the fact that the 
last IETF conference provided "peek at the future" style networking - i.e., 
11MB 802.11 wireless throughout the entire hotel, so that people could 
literally walk from one end of the hotel to the other with laptop perched 
in the crook of one arm while using the other to do e-mail, web browsing 
etc... ...AND that these are the same people with archaic browsers and 
e-mail clients that can't handle recent advances in technology - even to 
the point of using "dumb" devices that can only handle ASCII?

This strikes me a little like the pilot of the space shuttle who still uses 
an outhouse at home...

Stephen

Stephen McHenry
VP, Engineering/CTO
Cacheware, Inc.
655 Campbell Technology Pkwy, Suite 150
Campbell, CA 95008
Ph:  (408) 540-1270
Fax: (408) 540-1305
e-mail: [email-masked]
www.cacheware.com

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:26:13 +0000

In message <[email-masked]>, Harald Alvestrand typ
ed:

no no no - like ascii, pencil and surface is re-usable, both for
revised drafts, and for keeping warm if the minneapolis weather should
change too quickly

stone is ok, but only for full standards and bcp

 >>bring a stone tablet and a chisel!

 cheers

   jon

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:49:02 -0500

> Let's not even talk about EBCDIC. I mean does anyone even use that

Probably, given the number of S/390 class systems IBM still sells.  Though
the Linux 2.4 kernel has S/390 support.... ;)
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:08:08 -0800

I would suggest stone tablets. This encourages conciseness and simpler
protocols. Plus, it has more effect when you hit an implementor that
doesn't adhere to the spec with the tablet.

Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> -
> This message was passed through [email-masked], which
> is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed.
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:07:45 +0100

> Pen and paper is by far the most portable format on
> the planet and beyond.

Not so in this context.  Anyone interested in the Internet has access to the
Internet, and for anyone with access to the Internet, ASCII text is more
portable than printed paper.  Therefore ASCII text is the most portable
format for this application, even more portable than paper.

> For example, there are more people on this planet that
> have access to a pen and paper than a computer.

Those who don't have a computer aren't going to care about Internet drafts.

> Heck, my grandmother refuses to buy a computer even
> though she can afford it, but she can sure write a
> mean letter.

Does she read a lot of Internet drafts?

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:15:40 +0000

>>ii) paper burns at farenheit 451 (ref: burroughs, '63, truffaut '68], 

people pointed out (correctly) that the right reference here is
bradbury (ray, of light, not malcolm, of history) and not
burroughs (not Edgar (of detective story prize) Rice (paper) Burroughs, 
nor William (soft machine, near hourston?) Burroughs, nor even the 
Burroughs (yes, related) of computing fame....mea culpa

of course it was truffaut (francois, claire's knee etc) who made the
excellent movie

on another topic, we noticed that we cannot see certain sites that
provide some interesgint IP anonymizing services -we ran a 
traceroute -p xyzd to them and discovered that some hi-level ISPs are
running some port filtering - interesting - should one peer with
such folks given its hard to route around them as an end user?

 cheers

   jon
putting out the fire with gasoline...

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:26:58 -0800

>within the text. LaTeX should be platform-neutral, but the dvitty driver

I use a Mac, XML as described by the RFC's by Marshall Rose, and then 
the TCL package which Rose also wrote to create the I-D's.

Works great!

   paf

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:23:40 -0500

On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 08:05:42AM -0800, Stephen McHenry wrote:
> etc... 

but if you were using it on a non-MS world you will have known that
life still isn't perfect when it comes to wireless interoperability.
The IETF is about _interoperability_, not the latest and greatest
feature set.

> ...AND that these are the same people with archaic browsers and 

Its not that we have dumb devices, its that the OUTPUT of others
peopls devices aren't interoperable enough to utilizied by ANY device.

> This strikes me a little like the pilot of the space shuttle who still uses 

But if that shuttle pilot were on an alien ship that had no concept of
restrooms at all then you're left with whatever works...

BTW, I use Marshall's xml2rfc stuff (RFC 2629) and it works perfectly.
I can maintain my documents just like I do my code and then I can
output it to both text and HTML (I hear nroff is coming soon).

IMHO, the one great advantage to using ASCII documents is that
it greatly cuts down on artwork in documents. If it really needs
a picture then the author has to pass a pretty high bar to get it in
the document. I don't want to read RFCs that act more like Powerpoint
presentations....

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  [email-masked]

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:45:43 -0500

> stone is ok, but only for full standards and bcp

Some stones will keep you warm...assuming you don't mind chromosome damage...

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Think of it as evolution in action.          |
[email-masked]|                                             |
\==============================================================/

---

From: Alex Kamantauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:39:06 -0500 (EST)

> bring a stone tablet and a chisel!

 Away with your Mesopotamiacentric alphabets and writing implements!!
 Intelligent grunting was good enough for mankind for a million years!

-- 
Alex Kamantauskas
[email-masked]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:04:30 -0800

> such folks given its hard to route around them as an end user?

this is hard to believe.  no large isp could be bothered.  please send
failure evidence to relevant operational folk and cc: me.

and remember, traceroutes are not always let through to end sites even
when data are.

randy

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:41:30 -0500

> AND that these are the same people with archaic browsers and

I doubt that any of those laptops could handle only ASCII. 
But the fact is, many experts prefer the power and flexibility of a 
text-based interface for many tasks, over what you call "recent advances
in technology" that involve "smart" devices, mice, and bitmapped displays.

"archaic" browsers are often more stable (crash less frequently), faster,
and less bloated than more "modern" ones.

Keith

---

From: Alfonso De Gregorio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:50:19 +0100

On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:50:36PM -0800, Bora Akyol wrote:

Hi Everyone,

> using Lynx on a terminal)?

Honestly, I consider HTML a language not suitable to write Internet Drafts :-)

However, we can support multiple formats while continuing to read our drafts
in txt using SGML.

SGML can make authors more concerned about the way elements work instead of
the way they look. Infact, a SGML processor can render a SGML document to txt 
(our preferred choice), LaTeX, RTF, DVI, info, DOC, HTML etc.

You someone feel this could be useful, I can write a document type definition
(DTD) for RFCs, and a SGML template that use it.

Sincerely,
alfonso

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:32:05 -0800

HI,

Yesterday, I picked up the MS-WORD template and the program to
fix up the resulting output. I'm using Word 2000. For me, there
were problems with both the template and the program. If I fix
them, I'll send an update to rfc-editor after the I-D deadline
is over - don't have time now. sorry.

P.S. Saw the XML based tools. Will probably use them next time.

Regards,
/david t. perkins

At 10:50 PM 2/21/2001 -0800, Bora Akyol wrote:
>I am trying (trying is the key word) to write Internet drafts on a powerbook using MS Word with the template from the IETF web-site, then using a PC to convert Word to text per the instructions.
>
>Also, why isn't HTML an accepted format for Internet Drafts, pretty much everyone on the planet should be able to read an HTML file (even using Lynx on a terminal)?
>
>Regards,
>
>Bora Akyol
>

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:31:53 -0800

>  the most versatile editing package and geared for taks such as that...

I have a small program I wrote a few years ago to format I-Ds.  I 
write them using BBEdit, then run through the formatter, which 
wraps lines into paragraphs, paginates, and handles the TOC and 
references.  It isn't fancy, and I wrote it for my own purposes. 
If you'd like a copy, let me know.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Do not condemn the judgement of another because it differs from your
own.  You may both be wrong.                              --Dandemis

---

From: James Aldridge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:17:48 +0100

>  Intelligent grunting was good enough for mankind for a million years!

From certain email lists to which I'm subscribed, it seems that it's still
good enough.

Oh, you said *intelligent* grunting... sorry ;-)

James

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:40:13 +0700

> just a sec.  traditionally, we have this discussion every six months. 
> it has not been six months yet.

And the poisson is due to start its five year cycle to 
discuss about the future format of an RFC. The last
consensus (1996) was "let's wait five years :-).

regards,

-- 
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
- Don't cry for me, Nusantara;the truth is that I never...

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:11:16 +0000

>>putting out the fire with gasoline...

my mistake - it was the egress from a site to an ISP that was admin
blocking the port - not an ISP - big error reading output from
traceroute -p on my part  -sorry: isps, not guilty; crowcroft, guilty.

sincerely

   jon

---

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:55:21 -0500

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
   Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:41:30 -0500

One of the great, heralded "advances" which Microsoft touts in Windows
2000 is that all administrative interfaces are scriptable --- which
means in practice that it's possible make all administrative changes
from the command line (so it can be scripted using a batch file),
instead of forcing people to use the GUI control panel.  

So it's official.  Microsoft invented the command-line interface; isn't
great how they use their freedom to innovate?  :-)

							- Ted

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:46:44 -0800

While this thread was painfully long and random, at least it raised a flag
that I should wait for these comments before asking to move this to RFC. If
anyone else has issues please send them directly to me so I can get them in
and get this off the draft list.

Thanks,
Tony  <[email-masked]>

-----Original Message-----
From: David T. Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 2:32 PM
To: Bora Akyol; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Writing Internet Drafts on a Macintosh

HI,

Regards,
/david t. perkins

>I am trying (trying is the key word) to write Internet drafts on a
powerbook using MS Word with the template from the IETF web-site, then using
a PC to convert Word to text per the instructions.
>Also, why isn't HTML an accepted format for Internet Drafts, pretty much
everyone on the planet should be able to read an HTML file (even using Lynx
on a terminal)?