Re: Last Call: Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

Geoff,

Thank you for your comments.

  *> 
  *> I would like to make four comments on this document in response to this 
  *> last call
  *> 
  *> 
  *> 1.  Section 2.4 reads:
  *> 
  *>     2.4 Publication Format(s)
  *>   [...]
  *>    If there is a Postscript and/or PDF version of the document (see Section 
  *> 2.4), the author should inform the RFC Editor at the time of submission of 
  *> the ASCII version.
  *> 
  *> The self reference to section 2.4 from within 2.4 is cute in a recursive 
  *> sense, but not strictly necessary or useful.

Cute?  We would say, "dumb"!

  *> 
  *> 
  *> 
  *> 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.

Yes.

  *> 
  *> 3. 3.2 PostScript Format Rules
  *> 
  *> Not all the world uses imperial measurement units. It would be reasonable 
  *> to provide the metric equivalent when using "inches" to describe various 
  *> dimensions.

Good idea.

  *> 
  *> 4. 4.10 and 4.11
  *> 
  *> In both cases there are/will be  RFCs describing guidelines for security 
  *> and IANA considerations,
  *> and this document should reference them as informative references. I refer 
  *> to draft-iab-sec-cons-03.txt and RFC 2434. Consideration should be given to 
  *> publishing the draft-iab-sec-cons document concurrently with this document.
  *> 

Both references are already there, but there is a missing citation [13].
Thanks for pointing that out.

RFC Editor


  *> thanks,
  *> 
  *>     Geoff Huston
  *> 
  *> 
  *>