ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Fwd: Re: Last Call: 'Proposed Experiment: Normative Format in Additionto ASCII Text' to Experimental RFC (draft-ash-alt-formats)]

2006-06-26 05:20:17
So, since most programming languages work in ascii, what you are
saying is that this pretty diagram would be quite difficult to convert
to a lot of words in ascii, which may or may not be correct.
 
So why do we want to make such diagrams the normative specification
rather than using something like pseudocode, which is much easier to
convert to a programming language?
 
And we should consider that if we need to convert from a non-normative
pretty diagram to pseudocode or code, that would presumably be more
easily done by the specification authors who have a profound
understanding of the design, than for a reader not involved in working
on the design.
 
I fully agree that, for the reasons you give, using such pretty
diagrams as normative would generally be a problem.
 
David Harrington
dharrington(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com
dbharrington(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net
ietfdbh(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net



  _____  

From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 4:42 PM
To: iljitsch(_at_)muada(_dot_)com; stephen(_at_)sprunk(_dot_)org; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Last Call: 'Proposed Experiment: Normative Format
in Additionto ASCII Text' to Experimental RFC (draft-ash-alt-formats)]


As an example,  this .gif extracted from the Y.1711 OAM protocol
would be quite difficult in ASCII. It would take a lot of words
to describe, which many people would then have to transcribe to
some sort of timing diagram - which then may or may not be 
correct.

For those that cannot see the GIF it's figure 9

This is a timing diagram which is a problem that few folks have so far
mentioned.

- Stewart


<!--[if !vml]-->

<!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->


GIF image

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf