*> From owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Wed Mar 5 15:59:37 2003
*> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:41:15 -0500
*> From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
*> To: Geoff Huston <gih(_at_)telstra(_dot_)net>
*> Cc: moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu, iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org,
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org
*> 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