As I said in my comments, there is a big difference in the situations.
Currently, if the RFC Editor misses something in the PDF applied
corrections, that is unfortunate but not fundamentally significant,
in that the text file is normative, not the PDF.
With your proposed change, the PDF would be normative, not the
text. As such, the degree of care and review required for the PDF
document is much higher.
Similarly, the issue of version change and feature set is not central
when one is dealing with informative PDF. But becomes critical if
the PDF is normative. (It is extremely undesirable for a normative
document to be inaccessible.) As such, your persistent comparisons
with the current state are at best misleading.
As an example of the necessity of profiling the PDF, at the very
least we would want searchable PDF. (Some PDFs with text are
searchable, some are not.)
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 09:44 AM 6/15/2006, Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS wrote:
> As Joel mentions, this experiment will have a negative impact on
> RFC Editor throughput. Shouldn't the IAB and perhaps the IAD
> have some part in this?
.pdf is allowed now for drafts and RFCs. There are procedures in place
for .pdf output. In fact, the proposed experiment uses exactly the same
procedures followed now wrt RFC Editor processing of .pdf output
documents. As stated in the draft:
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf