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: