--On Thursday, 28 August, 2008 15:43 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer
<bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 07:23:06PM -0400,
John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
one would still have the image problem (which is not really
about pictures or decoration but about being able to express
flows, relationships, and similar diagrams in a clear and
concise way.
To express flows, relationships, state machines, etc, I *much*
prefer formal languages to images.
For an example for state machines, see
<http://www.cosmogol.fr/>
Stephane,
Nothing about this proposal, or the current RFC rules, prevent
you from doing that. Other things might. In particular, my
impression is that some members of the community aren't
comfortable reading definitions in formal languages and would
prefer other types of descriptions, one that they are sure they
understand. Some of them might have even been on the IESG at
one time or another. So you might get considerable push-back
during Last Call. But, again, nothing in the "image" proposal
prevents your describing state machines in the formal language
of your choice or, for that matter, complaining on Last Call
every time one is described in images.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf