Comments on RFC 580: Machine readable protocols
A request for a general way to convert formatted text into NLS files.
Clements, R., "Comments on RFC 580: Machine readable protocols", RFC 582, DOI 10.17487/RFC0582, November 1973, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc582>.
@misc{rfc582,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 582,
howpublished = {RFC 582},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0582},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc582},
author = {R. Clements},
title = {{Comments on RFC 580: Machine readable protocols}},
pagetotal = 1,
year = 1973,
month = nov,
} RFC text
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 ]
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Support for Machine-Readable Documents
R. Clements says he fully supports requiring protocol documents to be machine-readable. He notes that, in his situation, a line printer is more reliable than a copying machine.
His objection is specifically to RFC 580's preference for NLS files. He says the problem is the lack of conversion mechanisms into NLS, not NLS itself or the process of retrieving files.
The author agrees that protocol documents should be available as computer files. He objects to choosing NLS as the preferred format when sites cannot easily create it.
§2Let Sites Use Their Existing Tools
Most sites have their own text editors and RUNOFF programs or equivalents. The RFC notes that large protocol documents are often prepared at least partly with secretarial help, and argues that people should be able to use familiar tools on their home system.
Clements therefore proposes a general program for converting nicely formatted text into NLS files. He says the converter should at least be generally available and predictable.
Writers should be able to prepare documents with the tools they already know. A shared converter could then produce the NLS files needed by the NIC.