Network Working Group                                     T. Hansen, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                         AT&T Laboratories
Intended status: Informational                               L. Masinter
Expires: July 27, 2015                                          M. Hardy
                                                        January 23, 2015

              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 July 27, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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 July 27, 2015                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.2.  "Invisible" Options and Requirements  . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.1.  Internal Text Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.2.  Unicode Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.2.3.  Image Processing (Artwork)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.2.4.  Text Description of Images (Alt-Text) . . . . . . . .  10
       2.2.5.  Metadata Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.2.6.  Document Structure Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.2.7.  Tagged PDF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.2.8.  Embedded Files  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.3.  Digital Signatures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   3.  Choosing PDF versions and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.1.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.3.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  History and Current Use of PDF with RFCs and
                Internet Drafts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     A.1.  RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     A.2.  Internet Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix B.  A Synopsis of PDF Format History . . . . . . . . . .  15
     B.1.  PDF Profiles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       B.1.1.  PDF/A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       B.1.2.  PDF/UA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix C.  Tooling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     C.1.  PDF Viewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     C.2.  Printers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     C.3.  PDF Generation Libraries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     C.4.  Typefaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     C.5.  Other Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Appendix D.  Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

   Appendix E.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

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 Appendix C.

   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 July 27, 2015                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

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.  However, the page headers and
   footers should be typeset in a lighter color, smaller typeface, so as
   to be inobtrusive.  The page headers and footers should be placed
   into the PDF in a way not to interfere with screen readers.

2.1.4.  Paragraph Numbering

   One common feature of the RFC output formats are optional 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.

   Recommendation: When the XML "editing=yes" option has been chosen,
   show paragraph numbeers in the right margin (not left), using a small
   font and light color.  If possible, code them in a way as to not
   interfere with screen readers.

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

2.1.5.  Paged Content Layout Quality

   The process of creating a paged document from running text typically
   involves insuring that 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  Widows and orphans should be avoided
      automatically (unless the entire paragraph is only one line).
      Insure that a page break does not occur after the first line of a
      paragraph (orphans), if necessary, using slightly longer page
      sizes.  Similarly, insure that a page break does not occur before
      the last line of a paragraph (widows).

   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.
      Similarly, tables should not be split from the table titles.

   keepWithNext and keepWithPrevious  The XML attributes of
      'keepWithNext' and 'keepWithPrevious' should be followed whenever

   Whitespace Preservation  The XML entities such as NBSP andNBHYPHEN
      should be followed as directed whenever possible.

   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 minimized, and that widow and
   orphan processing, heading and title contiguation are automatic.

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

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

   3.  could look like the HTML version.

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

   Most of the choices used for the HTML rendering are thus applicable:


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 fall back 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
   mimicked, 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.

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

   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 should 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

   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.

   o  If there is a non-freely available font that provides all of the
      desired features that is deemed better than the freely-available
      options, the IETF community might consider acquiring the rights to
      use such a font.

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.

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

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?


   o  All hyperlinks available in the HTML rendition of the RFC should
      also be visible and active in the PDF produced.  This includes
      both internal hyperlinks and hyperlinks to external resources.

   o  The table of contents, including page numbers, are useful when
      printed.  These should also be hyperlinked to their respective

   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:

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

   o  as an image of the visual representation, such as a JPEG image of
      the word 'IETF'.  That is, there might be no internal
      representation of letters, words or paragraphs at all.

   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'.  That is, there might be no internal representation
      of words or paragraphs at all.

   o  placing words in position on the page, such as keeping the word
      'IETF' would be kept together.  That is, there might be no
      internal representation of paragraphs at all.

   o  insuring that the running order of text in the content stream
      matches the logical reading order.  That is, a sentence sentence
      such as 'The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) supports the
      Internet.' would be kept together as a sentence, and multiple
      sentences within a paragraph would be kept together.

   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).  Keeping the running order of text in
   the content stream in the proper order supports all of these auxiliar

   In addition, the "role map" feature of PDF would additionally allow
   for the mapping of the logical tags found in the original XML into
   tags in the PDF.


   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 2.2.8.

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

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.  Image Processing (Artwork)

   The XML allows both ASCII art and SVG to be used for artwork.


      If both ASCII art and SVG are available for a picture, the SVG
      artwork should be the preferred over the ASCII artwork.

      ASCII artwork must be rendered using a monospace font.

2.2.4.  Text Description of Images (Alt-Text)

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

2.2.5.  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, date, the document series, and a URL for where the document
   can be retrieved.

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

2.2.6.  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, plus
   the obvious section headings that are normally included in the
   Table of Contents.  If possible, this should be done in a way that
   the same fragment identifiers for the HTML version of the RFC will
   work for the PDF version.

2.2.7.  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.

2.2.8.  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, and 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

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

      reference implementations.  This capability might be supported
      through other mechanisms from the XML source files, but could also
      be supported within the PDF.


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

      If possible, make this a standard feature for Internet Drafts as

      Finding, extracting and embedding other components will require
      additional markup to clearly identify them, and additional review
      to insure the correctness of embedded files that 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.  As
   signatures also apply to embedded content, embedding the XML source
   will provide a way of signing the source XML as well.

   Recommendation: PDFs produced by the RFC editor SHOULD be signed.
   The management of certificates for the RFC editor function needs
   further review.

   There is no need for digital signatures on Internet Drafts.

3.  Choosing PDF versions and Standards

   PDF has gone through several revisions, primarily for the 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 evolved a broad set of capabilities, additional standards
   for PDF files are applicable.  These standards establish ground rules
   that are important for specific applications.  For example PDF/X was

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

   specifically designed for Prepress digital data exchange, with
   careful attention to color management and printing instructions,
   while the 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
   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.

      For RFCs, require PDF/A-3 with conformance level 'U'.  This
      captures the archivability and long-term stability of PDF 1.7
      files, mandatory Unicode mapping, and many of the requirement

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

      Use PDF/UA.

4.  References

4.1.  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., [2]

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

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

   [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.

4.2.  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.

4.3.  URIs













Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015





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

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

   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.  [3]

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

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

   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).

Appendix C.  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.

C.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 [5].

   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).

   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.

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

   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 [6].

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

C.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.

C.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 [7]: using XSLT to generate
   XSL-FO which is then processed by a formatting object processor such
   as Apache FOP.

   Several libraries are also available for generating PDF signatures.

C.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 [8]

   o  Source Serif Pro [9]

   o  Source Code Pro [10]

   A font that looks promising for its broad Unicode support is Skolar
   [11], but it requires licensing.  Another potentially useful set of
   typefaces is the Noto [12] family from Google.

C.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, reviewing and commentary tools that attach

Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

   annotations to PDF files, and 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 that xml2rfc has functioned


   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.

Appendix D.  Additional Reading

   [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Appendix E.  Acknowledgements

   The input of the following people is gratefully acknowledged: Brian
   Carpenter, Chris Dearlove, Martin Duerst, Heather Flanagan, 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


Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                PDF for RFCs                  January 2015

   Matthew Hardy
   345 Park Ave
   San Jose, CA  95110


Hansen, et al.            Expires July 27, 2015                [Page 20]