On Thursday, November 17, 2005 03:22:58 PM -0800 Lee Mahan <lmahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've been quiet through this discussion and its various offsprings, but now I just have to say very well done Paul. It doesn't matter what you use for your diagrams if your prose is poorly written.
Nor, really, does it matter if your prose is well written. I think we could save a lot off trouble here if we simply required that _all_ diagrams be non-normative, and supported by prose (note, I'm not talking about things like packet formats, tables of assigned numbers, or use of formal languages -- just diagrams). Then authors could include additional data, diagrams, etc in whatever format seemed appropriate (perhaps the RFC Editor could suggest a set of suitable formats). A key point that no one seems to have brought up here is that RFC's are an _archival_ document series. The idea is that in a hundred or perhaps a thousand years, it will still be possible to view them. That suggests that at least the normative parts should be represented in an archival data format which will stand the test of time, rather than whatever the latest fancy presentation format is. -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+@xxxxxxx> Sr. Research Systems Programmer School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf