*> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 5 15:59:37 2003 *> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:41:15 -0500 *> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *> To: Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] *> 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
