Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!VENERA.ISI.EDU!pvm
From: pvm@VENERA.ISI.EDU (Paul Mockapetris)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Comment on RFC1124 (?) / OSI Transition
Message-ID: <8910022323.AA11747@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 2 Oct 89 23:23:21 GMT
References: <[A.ISI.EDU]28-Sep-89.07:35:08.CERF>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: pvm@venera.isi.edu
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 23

Most of the arguments to date have focused on two issues:

	Freedom to print RFCs
and
	Freedom to GREP RFCs

I personally think that the first should be guaranteed by the IAB or
whoever calls the shots, and that vanilla Postscript plus FAX, or
some other compromise should be made.  I think that the second freedom
is desirable but has to strike a balance against progress.  I can't
imagine RFCS about X, multimedia, or several other topics without
graphics.

I also wanted to add that we could view the passing of the second
freedom as a step in the transition to OSI.  I suggest the following
sequence:

1	Text RFCs.
2	Text and PS RFCs which are less accessible.
...
7	Copyrighted RFCs with ISO/CCITT numbers which must be purchased.

paul