Stewart Bryant wrote: > I don't see why such powerful techniques shouldn't > be applied to the specifications themselves to allow the reader > to most grasp what is being said with the minimum effort. It merely promote complex protocols to disallow the reader to grasp even with the maximum effort. > I am afraid that I don't subscribe to the hair shirt approach to > drawings. I think that they should be exactly fit for purpose > neither too complex, nor too simple, and that the need to > work round the limits of 72 ASCII characters should not be > a constraint that limits the clarity of expression. It's good that protocols needing more than 72 ASCII characters are forbidden. For examples, see NGN diagrams. For further improvement to forbid the work round, it is good if RFCs more than 20 pages long are disallowed. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf