Paul,
Section 2.4 of 2223bis
(www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt) says:
The ASCII plain text version (and its .txt.pdf facsimile) is
always the official specification, and it must adequately and
completely define the technical content.
...
The primacy of the ASCII version typically requires that the
critical diagrams and packet formats be rendered
as "ASCII art" in the .txt version.
However, secondary or alternative versions in PostScript and/or
PDF are provided for some RFCs, to allow the inclusion of fancy
diagrams, graphs, or characters that cannot possibly be rendered
in ASCII plain text
Bob Braden
for the RFC Editor
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 6:56 AM -0700 7/6/09, Bob Braden wrote:
This is not quite true... at least, it never used to be true. The restriction
is/was that only the .txt version is normative; a .pdf version is non-normative
and intended for explanatory material.
This is my understanding as well (I can't find an RFC that says one way or
another, but I could have missed it). We have recent full-worked examples where
the PDF for a standards-track document has valuable visual information, such as
RFC 5059.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf