Network Working Group                                     T. Hansen, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                         AT&T Laboratories
Intended status: Informational                               L. Masinter
Expires: January 23, 2015                                       M. Hardy
                                                           July 22, 2014

              PDF for an RFC Series Output Document Format


   This document discusses options and requirements for the PDF
   rendering of RFCs in the RFC Series, as outlined in RFC 6949.  It
   also discusses the use of PDF for Internet Drafts, and available or
   needed software tools for producing and working with PDF.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 23, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Options and Requirements for PDF RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  "Visible" requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.1.  General visible requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.2.  Page size, margins  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.3.  headers and footers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.4.  paragraph numbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.5.  Paged content layout quality  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.6.  Similarity to other outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.7.  Typeface choices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.1.8.  Hyphenation and line breaks . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.9.  Embedding of Fonts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.10. Hyperlinks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.2.  "Invisible" options and requirements  . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.1.  Internal Text Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.2.  Unicode Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.3.  Text description of images (alt-text) . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.4.  Metadata Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.5.  Document Structure Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.2.6.  Tagged PDF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.2.7.  Embedded Files  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.3.  Digital Signatures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   3.  Tooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.1.  PDF Viewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.2.  Printers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.3.  PDF generation libraries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.4.  Typefaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.5.  Other Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  Choosing PDF versions and standards . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.1.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.3.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix A.  History and current use of PDF with RFCs and
                Internet Drafts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.1.  RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.2.  Internet Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix B.  A Synopsis of PDF Format History . . . . . . . . . .  16
     B.1.  PDF Profiles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       B.1.1.  PDF/A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       B.1.2.  PDF/UA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.2.  Additional Reading  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Appendix C.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   The RFC Series is evolving, as outlined in [RFC6949].  Future
   documents will use an archival format of XML with renderings in
   various formats, including PDF.

   Because PDF has a wide range of capabilities and alternatives, not
   all PDFs are "equal".  For example, visually similar documents could
   consist of scanned or rasterized images, include text layout options,
   hyperlinks, embedded fonts, and digital signatures.  (See Appendix B
   for a brief history of PDF.)

   This document explains some of the relevant options and makes
   recommendations, both for the RFC series and Internet Drafts.

   The PDF format and the tools to manipulate it are not as well known
   as those for the other RFC formats, at least in the IETF community.
   This document discusses some of the processes for creating and using
   PDFs using both open source and commercial products.

   NOTE: see [1] for XML source, related files, and an issue tracker for
   this document.

2.  Options and Requirements for PDF RFCs

   This section lays out options and requirements for PDFs produced by
   the RFC editor for RFCs.  There are two sections: "Visible" options
   are related to how the PDF appears when it is viewed with a PDF
   viewer.  "Internal Structure" options affect the ability to process
   PDFs in other ways, but do not control the way the document appears.
   (Of course, a viewer UI might display processing capabilities, such
   as showing if a document has been digitally signed.)

   In many cases, the choice of PDF requirements is heavily influenced
   by the capabilities of available tools to create PDFs.  Most of the
   discussion of tooling is to be found in Section 3.

   NOTE: each option in this section should outline the nature of the
   design choice, outline the pros and cons, and make a recommendation.

2.1.  "Visible" requirements

   PDF supports rich visible layout of fixed-sized pages.

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

2.1.1.  General visible requirements

   For a consistent 'look' of RFC and good style, the PDFs produced by
   the RFC editor should have a clear, consistent, identifiable and
   easy-to-read style.  They should print well on the widest range of
   printers, and look good on displays of varying resolution.

2.1.2.  Page size, margins

   PDF files are laid out for a particular size of page and margins.
   There are two paper sizes in common use: "US Letter" (8.5 x 11
   inches, 216x279 mm, in popular use in North America) and "A4"
   (210x297 mm, 8.27x11.7 inches, standard for the rest of the world).
   Usually PDF printing software is used in a "shrink to fit" mode where
   the printing is adjusted to fit the paper in the printer.

   Recommendation: There is some controversy, but the argument for
   choosing A4 over US Letter is appealing.  Whatever page size is
   chosen, the margins and header positioning will need to be chosen to
   look good on both paper sizes using common printing methods.  In
   addition, for both Internet Drafts and RFCs, margins should be the
   smallest consistent with the above requirement.

2.1.3.  headers and footers

   Page headers and footers are part of the page layout.  There are a
   variety of options.  Note that page headers and footers in PDF can be
   typeset in a way that the entire (longer) title might fit.

   Page headers and footers should contain similar information as the
   headings in the current text versions of documents, including page
   numbers, title, author, working group, but typeset in a lighter
   color, smaller typeface, so as to be inobtrusive.

2.1.4.  paragraph numbering

   One common feature of the new RFC output formats are visible
   paragraph numbers, to aid in discussions.  In the PDF and thus
   printed rendition, it is possible to make paragraph numbers
   unobtrusive, and even to impinge on the margins.

   Recmmendation: show paragraph numbeers in the right margin, not left,
   small font, light color, and, if possible, code them in a way as to
   not interfere with screen readers.

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

2.1.5.  Paged content layout quality

   The process of creating a paged document from running text typically
   involves insuring related material is present on the same page
   together, and that artifacts of pagination don't interfere with easy
   reading of the document.  Typical high-quality layout processors do
   several things:

   widow and orphan management  Insure a page break does not occur after
      the first line of a paragraph, or before the last line (unless the
      entire paragraph is only one line).

   keep section heading contiguous  Do not page break immediately after
      a section heading.  If there isn't room on a page for the first
      (two) lines of a section after the section heading, page break
      before the heading.

   avoid splitting artwork  Figures should not be split from figure
      titles.  If possible, keep the figure on the same page as the
      (first) mention of the figure.

   headers for long tables after page breaks  Another common option in
      producing paginated documents is to include the column headings of
      a table if the table cannot be displayed on a single page.

   Layout engines differ in the quality of the algorithms used to
   automate these processes.  In some cases, the automated processes
   require some manual assistance to insure, for example, that a text
   line intended as a heading is 'kept' with the text it is heading for.

   Recommendation: Minimize requirements for authors to add specific
   markup to the XML source for assisting with with manually enhancing
   layout for Internet Drafts.  Choose a layout engine for the RFC
   Editor so that manual intervention is minmized, and that widow and
   orphan processing, heading keep are automatic.

2.1.6.  Similarity to other outputs

   There is some advantage to having the PDF files look like the text or
   HTML renderings of the same document.  There are several options even
   so.  The PDF

   1.  could look like the text version of the document, or

   2.  could look like the text version of the document but with
       pictures rendered as pictures instead of using their ASCII-art
       equivalent, or

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

   3.  could look like the HTML version.

   Recommendation: the PDF rendition should look like the HTML
   rendition, at least in spirit.  For example, some differences from
   the HTML rendition might include different typeface and size (chosen
   for printing), page numbers in the table of contents, page headers
   and footers and headers.

2.1.7.  Typeface choices

   A PDF may refer to a font by name, or it may use an embedded font.
   When a font is not embedded, a PDF viewer will attempt to locate a
   locally installed font of the same name.  If it can not find an exact
   match, it will find a "close match".  If a close match is not
   available, it will fallback to something implementation dependent and
   usually undesirable.

   Recommendation: for consistent viewing, all fonts should be embedded.

   In addition, if the HTML version of the document is being visually
   mimiced, the font(s) chosen should have both variable width and
   constant width components, as well as bold and italic

   The typefaces used by Internet Drafts and by RFCs need not be

   Few fonts have glyphs for the entire repertoire of Unicode
   characters; for this purpose, the PDF generation tool may need a set
   of fonts and a way of choosing them.

   Typefaces are typically licensed and, in many cases, there is a fee
   for use by PDF creation tools; however, not for display or print of
   the embedded fonts.


   o  For readability when printed, the main body text should be in a
      serif font and the headings in a sans-serif font.

   o  Code, BNF, and other text could use a fixed-width font to aid in
      insuring alignment, e.g., in BNF.

   o  Type faces used by the xml2rfc application for Internet drafts
      should be freely available, and included with the xml2rfc

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

   o  The range of Unicode characters allowed in the XML source for
      Internet Drafts and RFCs may be bounded by the availability of
      embeddable fonts with appropriate glyphs.

2.1.8.  Hyphenation and line breaks

   Typically, when doing page layout of running text, especially with
   narrow page width and long words, layout processors of English text
   often have the option of hyphenating words, or using existing hyphens
   as a place to introduce word breaks.  However, line breaks mid-word
   where the 'word' is actually technically a sequence of characters
   representing a protocol element or protocol sequence is actively

   Recommendation: do not introduce any hyphens into the visual display
   or any line breaks mid-word even for hyphens in the text.

2.1.9.  Embedding of Fonts

   The PDF/A standards mandate the embedding of fonts.  Preferably, the
   software generating the files would produce PDF/A-conforming files
   directly, thus ensuring that all glyphs include Unicode mappings and
   embedded fonts from the outset.

2.1.10.  Hyperlinks

   PDF supports hyperlinks both to sections of the same document and to
   other documents.

   The conversion to PDF can generate:

   o  hyperlinks within the document

   o  hyperlinks to external locations

   o  hyperlinks within a table of contents

   Where should hyperlinks to RFCs point? to the info page for the RFC?
   to the PDF version of the RFC?  (NOTE: the RFC Series Editor has
   stated a preference for them to point to the info page for the RFC.)
   Similar questions need to be answered on references to internet
   drafts: Where should hyperlinks to internet drafts point?  To the
   datatracker entry?  To the tools entry?  To a PDF version of the
   internet draft?


Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

   o  All hyperlinks available in the HTML rendition of the RFC should
      also be visible and active in the PDF produced.

   o  Table of contents, including page numbers, are useful when
      printed.  These should be hyperelinked.

   o  Hyperlinks to RFCs and Internet drafts from the references section
      should point to a "landing" page which then links to the various
      formats available.

2.2.  "Invisible" options and requirements

   PDF offers a number of features which improve the utility of PDF
   files in a variety of workflows, at the cost of extra effort in the
   xml2rfc conversion process; the tradeoffs may be different for the
   RFC editor production of RFCs and for Internet Drafts.

2.2.1.  Internal Text Representation

   The contents of a PDF file can be represented in many ways.  The PDF
   file could be generated:

   o  as an image of the visual representation, such as a JPEG image of
      the word 'IETF'

   o  placing individual characters in position on the page, such as
      saying "put an 'F' here", then "put an 'T' before it", then "put
      an 'E' before that", then "put an 'I' before that" to render the
      word 'IETF'

   o  placing words in position on the page, such as keeping the word
      'IETF' would be kept together, and

   o  insuring that the running order of text in the content stream
      matches logical reading order, e.g., keeping the sentence 'The
      Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) supports the Internet.'
      together as a sentence.

   o  A "role map" feature of PDF would allow mapping the logical tags
      found in the original XML into tags in the PDF.

   All of these end up with essentially the same visual representation
   of the output.  However, each level has tradeoffs for auxiliary uses,
   such as searching or indexing, commenting and annotation, and
   accessibility (text-to-speech).


Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

   o  Text in content streams should follow the XML document's logical
      order (in the order of tags) to the extent possible.  This will
      provide optimal reuse by software that does not understand Tagged
      PDF.  (PDF/UA requires this.)

   o  We should investigate the use of role-maps to capture more of the
      xml2rfc source structure, to the point where it might even be
      possible to reconstruct much or all of the source.  However, there
      is not a compelling use case over embedding the original XML, as
      described in Section 2.2.7.

2.2.2.  Unicode Support

   PDF itself does not require use of Unicode.  Text is represented as a
   sequence of glyphs which then can be mapped to Unicode.


      PDF files generated must have the full text, as it appears in the
      original XML.

      Unicode normalization may occur.

      Text within SVG for SVG images should also have Unicode mappings.

      Alt-text for images should also have Unicode.

2.2.3.  Text description of images (alt-text)

   NOTE: This section should describe how alt-text for images is
   presented in PDF....TBD

2.2.4.  Metadata Support

   Metadata encodes information about the document authors, the document
   series, date created, etc. using the RDF Dublin core (and other
   elements).  Having this metadata within the PDF file allows it to be
   used by search engines, viewers and other reuse tools.

   PDF supports embedded metadata using XMP [XMP], the Extensible
   Metadata Platform (XMP).

   Recommendation: The PDFs generated should have all of the metadata
   from the XML version embedded directly as XMP metadata, including the
   author and date information, set the document series, and a URL for
   where the document can be retrieved.

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

2.2.5.  Document Structure Support

   PDF supports an 'outline' feature where sections of the document are
   marked; this oould be used in addition to the table of contents as a
   navigation aid.

   The section structure of an RFC can be mapped into the PDF elements
   for the document structure.  This will allow the bookmark feature of
   PDF readers to be used to quickly access sections of the document.

   Requirement: The section structure of an RFC should be mapped into
   the PDF elements for the document structure.  This would include
   section headings for the boilerplate sections such as the Abstract,
   Status of the Document, Table of Contents, and Author Addresses.

2.2.6.  Tagged PDF

   NOTE: say more about the use of alternative texts for images, tagging
   text spans, and providing replacement texts for symbols and images.
   A role-map could be provided here to map the logical tags found in
   the RFC XML to the standard tagset for PDF.  This could be included
   in the generated PDF.

2.2.7.  Embedded Files

   PDF has the capability of including other files; the files may be
   labeled both by a media type and a role, the AFRelationship key
   [PDFA3].  In this way, the PDF file acts also as a container.

   Embedded content may be compressed.

   Many PDF viewers support the ability to view and extract embedded
   files, although this capability is not universal.

   Embedding content in the PDF file allows the PDF to act as a complete
   package, which can be transformed, archived, digitally signed.
   Useful possibilities:

      Embed the source XML input file itself within the PDF.  If the
      source SVG and images for illustrations are also embedded, this
      would make the PDF file totally self-referential.

      Embed directly extractable components that are useful for
      independent processing, including ABNF, MIBs, source code for
      reference implementations.  This capability might be supported
      through other mechanisms from the XML source files, but could also
      be supported within the PDF.

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014


      Embed the XML source and all illustrations, for both RFCs and
      Internet Drafts, as a standard feature for xml2rfc's PDF output.

      Finding, extracting and embedding other components will require
      additional markup to clearly identify them, and additional review
      to insure the correctness of embedded files which are not visible.

2.3.  Digital Signatures

   PDF has supported digital signatures since PDF 1.2.  There are
   multiple methods for signing PDF files.  The signature is intended to
   apply not only to the bits in the file (that they haven't been
   modified) but also to lock down the visual presentation as well.

   Normally, the authenticity of RFC files is not an issue, since the
   RFC editor maintains a repository of all RFCs which is widely
   replicated.  However, the RFC Editor and staff are at times called to
   provide evidence that a particular RFC is the 'original' and has not
   been visually modified, and there may be other use cases.

   Recommendation: The use cases for digital signatures need further
   review, including management of certificates for the RFC editor
   function.  PDFs produced by the RFC editor likely SHOULD be signed.
   As signatures also apply to embedded content, this will provide a way
   of signing the source XML as well.  There is no need for digital
   signatures on Internet Drafts.

3.  Tooling

   This section discusses tools for viewing, comparing, creating,
   manipulating, transforming PDF files, including those currently in
   use by the RFC editor and Internet drafts, as well as outlining
   available PDF tools for various processes.

3.1.  PDF Viewers

   As with most file formats, PDF files are experienced through a reader
   or viewer of PDF files, and there are numerous viewers.  One partial
   list of PDF viewers can be found at [2].

   PDF viewers vary in capabilities, and it is important to note which
   PDF viewers support the features utilized in PDF RFCs and Internet
   drafts (features such as links, digital signatures, Tagged PDF and
   others mentioned in Section 2).

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

   A survey of the IETF community might broaden the list of viewers in
   common use, but an initial list to consider include some that are
   currently maintained and supported viewers and legacy systems.
   Maintained viewers include:

   Adobe Reader  Multiple platforms.  Supports all of the features on
      most platforms.

   Google Chrome  Multiple platforms.  Web browser which includes PDF
      support.  Rapidly moving target, open source.

   PDF.js  Multiple platforms.  A JavaScript library to convert PDF
      files into HTML5, usable as a web-based viewer that can be
      included in web browsers.  Used by Mozilla Firefox.  Also rapidly
      moving target.

   Foxit Reader  Multiple platforms.  PDF Viewer / Reader for Desktop
      computer and Mobile Devices.  Recently licensed by Google, and the
      code for this purpose was made open source; see [3].

   Several 'legacy' viewers to consider include: Ghostview, Xpdf.

3.2.  Printers

   While almost all viewers also support printing of PDF files, printing
   is one of the most important use cases for PDFs.  Some printers have
   direct PDF support.

3.3.  PDF generation libraries

   Because the xml2rfc format is a unique format, software for
   converting XML source documents to the various formats will be
   needed, including PDF generation.

   One promising direction is suggested in [4]: using XSLT to generate
   XSL-FO which is then processed by a formatting object processor such
   as Apache FOP.

3.4.  Typefaces

   This section is intended to discuss available typefaces that might
   satisfy requirements.  Some openly available fixed-width typefaces
   (without extensive Unicode support, however) include:

   o  Source Sans [5]

   o  Source Serif Pro [6]

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

   o  Source Code Pro [7]

3.5.  Other Tools

   In addition to generating and viewing PDF, other categories of PDF
   tools are available and may be useful both during specification
   development and for published RFCs.

   These include tools for comparing two PDFs, checkers that could be
   used to validate the results of conversion, review and comment tools
   which attach annotations to PDF files, digital signature creation and

   Validation of an arbitrary author-generated PDF file would be quite
   difficult; there are few PDF validation tools.  However, if internet
   drafts and RFCs are generated by conversion from XML via xml2rfc,
   then explicit validation of PDF and adherance to expected profiles
   would mainly be useful to insure xml2rfc has functioned properly.


   o  Discourage (but allow) submission of a PDF representation for
      Internet Drafts.  In most cases, the PDF for an Internet draft
      should be produced automatically when XML is suhmitted, with an
      opportunity to verify the conversion.

   o  The RFC editor should create PDF files from the XML rather than
      accepting PDFs from the author.

4.  Choosing PDF versions and standards

   PDF has gone through several revisions, primarily addition of
   features, as noted in in Appendix B.  PDF features have generally
   been added in a way that older viewers 'fail gracefully', but even
   so, the older the PDF version produced, the more legacy viewers will
   support that version, but the fewer features will be enabled.

   As PDF has evoled a broad set capabilities, additional standards for
   PDF files are applicable.  These standards establish ground rules
   that are important for specific applications.  For example PDF/X was
   specifically designed for Prepress digital data exchange, with
   careful attention to color management and printing instructions,
   while PDF/E standard was designed for engineering documents.

   Two additional standards families are important to the RFC format,
   though: long-term preservation (PDF/A), and user acessibility (PDF/
   UA).  These then have sub-profiles (PDF/A-1, PDF/A-2, PDF/A-3), each

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

   of which have conformance levels.  These standards are then supported
   by various software libraries and tools.

   It is effective and useful to use these standards to capture PDF for
   RFC requirements, and they will make the PDF files useful in
   workflows that expect them.


      Choose PDF 1.7; although relatively recent, it is well supported
      by widely available viewers.

      Require PDF/A-3, conformance level 'u' for RFCs.  This requirement
      captures the archivability and long-term stability of PDF 1.7
      files, and many of the requirement features.

      Use PDF/A-3 for embedding additional data (including the source
      files) in RFCs and Internet Drafts.

      Require PDF/UA for RFCs.

5.  References

5.1.  References

   [PDF]      ISO, "Portable document format -- Part 1: PDF 1.7", ISO
              32000-1, 2008.

              Also available free from Adobe.

   [XMP]      ISO, "Extensible metadata platform (XMP) specification --
              Part 1: Data model, serialization and core properties",
              ISO 16684-1, 2012.

              Not available free, but there are a number of descriptive
              resources, e.g., [8]

   [PDFA2]    ISO, "Electronic document file format for long-term
              preservation -- Part 2: Use of ISO 32000-1 (PDF/A-2).",
              ISO 19005-2, 2011.

   [PDFA3]    ISO, "Electronic document file format for long-term
              preservation -- Part 3: Use of ISO 32000-1 with support
              for embedded files (PDF/A-3)", ISO 19005-3, 2012.

   [PDFUA]    ISO, "Electronic document file format enhancement for
              accessibility -- Part 1: Use of ISO 32000-1 (PDF/UA-1)",
              ISO 19005-3, 2012.

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

5.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3778]  Taft, E., Pravetz, J., Zilles, S., and L. Masinter, "The
              application/pdf Media Type", RFC 3778, May 2004.

   [RFC6949]  Flanagan, H. and N. Brownlee, "RFC Series Format
              Requirements and Future Development", RFC 6949, May 2013.

5.3.  URIs















Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

Appendix A.  History and current use of PDF with RFCs and Internet

   NOTE: this section is meant as an overview to give some background.

A.1.  RFCs

   The RFC series has for a long time accepted Postscript renderings of
   RFCs, either in addition to or instead of the text renderings of
   those same RFCs.  These have usually been produced when there was a
   complicated figure or mathematics within the document.  For example,
   consider the figures and mathematics found in RFC 1119 and RFC 1142,
   and compare the figures found in the text version of RFC 3550 with
   those in the Postscript version.  The RFC editor has provided a PDF
   rendering of RFCs.  Usually, this has been a print of the text file
   that does not take advantage of any of the broader PDF functionality,
   unless there was a Postscript version of the RFC, which would then be
   used by the RFC editor to generate the PDF.

A.2.  Internet Drafts

   In addition to PDFs generated and published by the RFC editor, the
   IETF tools community has also long supported PDF for Internet Drafts.
   Most RFCs start with Internet Drafts, edited by individual authors.
   The Internet drafts submission tool at
   submit/ accepts PDF and Postscript files in addition to the
   (required) text submission and (currently optional) XML.  If a PDF
   wasn't submitted for a particular version of an Internet Draft, the
   tools would generate one from the Postscript, HTML, or text.

Appendix B.  A Synopsis of PDF Format History

   [RFC3778] contains some history of PDF.  This is a capsule view, plus
   additional information on events that have occurred since the
   publication of [RFC3778].  NOTE: currently doesn't talk about the
   handoff of change control to ISO and the evolution as an ISO standard
   32000.  Plans are to update the application/pdf MIME registration to
   include this information, and then point to that.

   The Portable Document Format (PDF) family of document formats was
   invented by Adobe Systems in the early 1990s.  At the time, it was a
   proprietary format that underwent a variety of revisions that matched
   the release of different versions of the Adobe Acrobat products.  For
   example, Acrobat 1 supported PDF version 1.0, Acrobat 2 supported PDF
   version 1.1, Acrobat 5 supported PDF version 1.4, etc.  [9]

   Each release (and extension level) introduced new features.  For
   example, (1.0) character, word and image rendering, externally-

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

   referenced or embedded fonts, (1.1) passwords, encryption, device-
   independent color, (1.2) interactive forms, unicode, signatures,
   compression, (1.3) web semantic capture, embedded files, Adobe
   javascript, (1.4) metadata streams, tagged PDF, (1.5) controllable
   hiding of sections, slideshows, (1.6) 3D artwork, OpenType font
   embedding, linking into embedded files, and (1.7) video and audio
   support.  After release 1.7, additional Extension Levels have been
   introduced.  Each release also provided enhancements to the previous
   support.  For example, encryption was introduced in 1.1, but AES
   encryption wasn't supported until 1.7 extension level 3.  A PDF
   reader for PDF 1.1 is not able to read and display a PDF 1.7 file,
   but a PDF reader for PDF 1.7 can also handle all previous versions of
   PDF.  The wikipedia page at [10] has a nice summary table going into
   further details.

B.1.  PDF Profiles

   Certain profiles or subsets of PDF have been standardized.  PDF/X (X
   for Exchange), PDF/A (A for Archive), PDF/E (E for Engineering), PDF/
   VT (VT for Variables and Transactions), and PDF/UA (UA for Universal
   Access) all have ISO standards associated with them.  Of particular
   potential interest to the RFC community are PDF/A and PDF/UA.

B.1.1.  PDF/A

   PDF/A in turn has nuances, as there have been a couple updates to it
   and conformance levels within each version.  PDF/A-1 was based on PDF
   release 1.4.  PDF/A-2 was based on PDF release 1.7, and PDF/A-3 adds
   embedded arbitrary files.  PDF/A is considered a profile because it
   mandates that certain optional features be used.  At a high level,
   the conformance levels are B (basic), U (mandatory unicode mapping
   [not in PDF/A-1]) and A (accessible).  The requirements for
   conformance level A are that: the document structure must be
   represented within the PDF (e.g., section headings, table cells,
   paragraph divisions), tagged PDF is used (e.g., element anchors) and
   that language tags be used where appropriate.  When referring to PDF/
   A, you would refer to the version and conformance level.  So PDF/A-1A
   would be the profile for the Accessible conformance level of version
   1 of PDF/A, which was based on PDF 1.4.

B.1.2.  PDF/UA

   The PDF/UA (Universal Access) profile is orthogonal to the other
   profiles, specifying user accessibility requirements.  It places some
   restrictions on the other profiles, such as requiring the use of
   higher-level constructs for the textual representation and adds
   additional requirements for programatic access (think automatic
   readers for the blind).

Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                     July 2014

B.2.  Additional Reading

   [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Appendix C.  Acknowledgements

   The input of the following people is gratefully acknowledged: Brian
   Carpenter, Chris Dearlove, Martin Duerst, Joe Hildebrand, Duff
   Johnson, Leonard Rosenthal, ....

Authors' Addresses

   Tony Hansen (editor)
   AT&T Laboratories
   200 Laurel Ave. South
   Middletown, NJ  07748


   Larry Masinter
   345 Park Ave
   San Jose, CA  95110


   Matthew Hardy
   345 Park Ave
   San Jose, CA  95110


Hansen, et al.          Expires January 23, 2015               [Page 18]