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.
RECEIVED AT NIC NOVEMBER 14, 1973.
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by Lorrie Shiota 1/02 ]
Clements [Page 1]
|
