Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


Network Working Group R. Clements Request for Comments: 582 BBN-TENEX NIC: 19962 5 November 1973

                       Comments on RFC 580 -
                     Machine Readable Protocols
 I fully support the requirement for machine-readable protocol
 documents.  In my situation, the line-printer is a much more reliable
 device than the copying machine.
 However, I object to the phrase "preferably as nls files" in RFC 580.
 My objection is based on the lack of conversion mechanisms INTO NLS,
 not to the retrieval process or NLS itself.
 Most sites have their own text editors and RUNOFF's (or their
 equivalents).  Most large protocol documents are prepared at least
 partially by secretarial help.  Those persons should be able to
 prepare the documents in the home machine (or wherever) in languages
 with which they are familiar.  There should be a general program
 (preferably clever, but at least generally available and predictable)
 for converting nicely formatted text to NLS files.
 Perhaps the program which receives mail for the journal will do the
 trick; if so it needs further documentation beyond the mail-oriented
 RFC 543, and its existence and usage need to be publicised.
       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
        [ into the online RFC archives by Lorrie Shiota 1/02 ]

Clements [Page 1]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc582.txt · Last modified: 2002/03/05 19:24 by

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki