





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]

