Subject: Re: Last Call: Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 00:47:43 GMT

*> From [email-masked]  Wed Mar  5 15:59:37 2003
  *> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:41:15 -0500
  *> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
  *> To: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
  *> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
  *> Subject: Re: Last Call: Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors 
  *>  to BCP
  *> Mime-Version: 1.0
  *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  *> X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
  *> 
  *> 
  *> > 2. section 2.5
  *> > 
  *> > "When a .ps version is published, the RFC Editor will also publish a 
  *> > corresponding .pdf version by using the 'distill' utility."
  *> > 
  *> > I'm sure that the RFC Editor(s) would agree that all software is transient, 
  *> > and a reference to "the 'distill' utility" should be accompanied by a 
  *> > reference to its authoritative source so that readers may clearly 
  *> > understand what is being referred to here.
  *> 
  *> better yet, don't specify the distill utility part of the RFC.  let the rfc
  *> editor choose whatever tool it wants to use at the time.  especially if adobe
  *> changes distill so that the pdf versions it produces are not compatible with
  *> free pdf readers (which isn't out of the question given their attempts to
  *> promote DRM)
  *> 

The point is well taken.  Thanks.

RFC Editor