For many of the reasons Joel mentioned, I also do not support the
experiment as stated in the draft. I want to amplify one point:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Finally, this experiment will produce a set of RFCs which live forever
with the limitation that those RFCs do not have normative ASCII. What
if we decide that this is a bad idea? How do we fix it?
A change from ASCII should not be a flag day, as this document would do
to two WGs, but rather based on more experience retrieving the
appropriate format. So for instance, it might be interesting if the RFC
Editor made available HTML versions of documents produced with XML2RFC,
with a caveat that the normative form is still ASCII. This also allows
for the continued evolution of XML2RFC to include other objects in a
more planned manner. The costs of doing this sort of thing are a
concern, of course.
I do think that ASCII art has its limits, particularly when it comes to
mathematics. But I think a more gradual evolution is called for in this
case, with more consideration given to not only the normative issue but
all the others Joel raised.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf