Masataka Ohta wrote:
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.
Limiting the documentation mechanism is not an appropriate way to
limit the complexity of protocols. That is the function of
the WG/IETF/IESG review process.
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.
They are not forbidden - they are just harder to describe and are hence
more likely to have bugs that no one notices until we have a problem.
For further improvement to forbid the work round, it is good if
RFCs more than 20 pages long are disallowed.
Which results in protocol definitions that are choped up into so
many parts that no one can see how to put then back together.
- Stewart
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf