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)