Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!srhqla!nrcvax!ihm
From: ihm@NRC.COM (Ian H. Merritt)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Comment on RFC1124 (?)
Keywords: RFC's PostScript
Message-ID: <361@nrcvax.NRC.COM>
Date: 28 Sep 89 20:09:30 GMT
References: <5446@asylum.SF.CA.US>
Reply-To: ihm@nrcvax.UUCP (Ian H. Merritt)
Organization: The Frobboz Magic Dungeon Co., Inc.
Lines: 82

karl@asylum.SF.CA.US (Karl Auerbach) says:
>RFC1124 came out with a discussion of policy issues of interconnected
>networks.  Interesting and important stuff.
>
>Now, it seems, according to RFC1111, that postscript is OK for RFC's,
>(including postscript that was obviously generated by a word or text
>processor.)
>
>So: can anyone make reasonable comment on stuff that looks like what
>follows?  Can anyone do a reasonable machine-based content search?
>Can I send it though my automated indexing tools?  Can I make a
>nice e-mail reply with appropriate selections for context?
>
>No.
>
>I thought we were working on communications, not obfuscation.
>
>I propose that we ban postscript RFCs.
>
>			--karl--
>
>Selection from RFC1124:
>
>727 789(Computer)U
>1039(networking)S
>1391(has)S
>1511(become)S
	.
	. (Most of this is omitted here)
	.

>2131(three)S
>2299(phases.)S
>2557(The)S
>2693(\256rst)S
>2829(phas)S


I just sent a note to the NIC about that one, suggesting that at least
if PostScript RFC's are to come out, that a plaintext grep'able
version accompany it.  Here is their response:

<From NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL Mon Sep 25 12:03:02 1989
<Return-Path: <NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL>
<Received: from NIC.DDN.MIL by nrc.com (4.0/NRC-DDN1.1)
<	id AA00386; Mon, 25 Sep 89 12:02:56 PDT
<Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 12:03:02 PDT
<From: DDN Reference <NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL>
<Subject: Re: rfc1119
<To: ihm@nrc.com
<Cc: NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL
<In-Reply-To: <8909181603.AA06258@nrc.com>
<Message-Id: <12529118419.30.NIC@NIC.DDN.MIL>
<Status: RO
<
<Ian,
<
<I'll let Postel answer this one. We have been working with Postel to encourage
<him to provide text RFCs whenever possible.
<
<Regards,
<Sol for the NIC
<-------

Jon?  Care to comment on this?

Until utilities exist to allow meaningful grep'ing (or equivalent)
through PostScript or TeX documents; until EVERYBODY concerned has
workstations with PostScript AND TeX browsers (i.e. don't need to
waste paper to read or time to visually search), I believe we don't
want documents in this forum, one of the best features of which was
online retrieval, to come out in cryptic form without at least an
accompanying plaintext version.  Ok, so mathematical equations and
cute little graphic figures won't be as pretty; we've done OK until
now. At least we'll be able to read them without trying to dig up a
PostScript printer, and we'll be able to have the COMPUTER do the
searching for things in our RFC libraries, as we have always done.

	-i
-- 
US Snail:	2380 Rose Avenue; Oxnard, CA  93030  U.S.A. tel. 805-485-2700
InterNet:	ihm@NRC.COM