On Thursday, November 17, 2005 03:22:58 PM -0800 Lee Mahan
<lmahan(_at_)designwest(_dot_)com> wrote:
I've been quiet through this discussion and its various offsprings, but
now I just have to say very well done Paul. It doesn't matter what you
use for your diagrams if your prose is poorly written.
Nor, really, does it matter if your prose is well written. I think we
could save a lot off trouble here if we simply required that _all_ diagrams
be non-normative, and supported by prose (note, I'm not talking about
things like packet formats, tables of assigned numbers, or use of formal
languages -- just diagrams). Then authors could include additional data,
diagrams, etc in whatever format seemed appropriate (perhaps the RFC
Editor could suggest a set of suitable formats).
A key point that no one seems to have brought up here is that RFC's are
an _archival_ document series. The idea is that in a hundred or perhaps
a thousand years, it will still be possible to view them. That suggests
that at least the normative parts should be represented in an archival
data format which will stand the test of time, rather than whatever the
latest fancy presentation format is.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
Sr. Research Systems Programmer
School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf