I have always thought that ASCII had much to commend it - ease of use, compactness, open standard - which outweighed its limited functionality. But while we debate this, have events already overtaken us? I was surprised to find, when reading draft-fu-nsis-qos-nslp-statemachine-02.txt repeated statements to the effect that if you want to see what this looks like, look at the .pdf version. It would seem that the system is giving tacit support to .pdf (although I am cannot readily see just where the .pdf version is filed:-( What will anyone say when this I-D reaches last call? Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "ietf maillist" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 5:14 PM Subject: RE: Alternative formats for IDs > Hello All , > > On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, David B Harrington wrote: > >> Lets go ahead and ask then - > >> Does anyone else think that IETF should allow documents which > >> format/structure is not publicly known as one of the ways to > >> distribute IETF specifications? > > > > Not me (or not I, whichever) > > David Harrington > > dbharrington@xxxxxxxxxxx > I have to concur , No I do not want any document structure > that does not have a COMPLETELY publicly documented > specification as an IETF should allow document format . > JimL > -- > +------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | > | Network Engineer | 3542 Broken Yoke Dr. | Give me Linux | > | babydr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Billings , MT. 59105 | only on AXP | > +------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf