Re: Baby Steps (was RE: Alternative formats for IDs)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 01/05/2006 11:28 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
> Even those of us who are strongly supportive of ASCII as our
> primary base format and those who believe that the effort needed
> to simplify illustrations and diagrams sufficiently that they
> can be accurately represented in ASCII artwork is helpful in
> forcing clarity are reluctant to say "never".

> Unless the IESG has changed the rules while I was not looking,
> it has been permitted to post I-Ds in PDF in addition to ASCII
> for some years.

Yes.  I support ASCII as the output format.  I appreciate the
discipline it encourages of separating protocol specification from
descriptive text and figures, and of being very clear about state
machines, etc.  However, there are cases where descriptive text and
figures are much more informative in some other format, so I wouldn't
say never (nor should I be forced into a position of choosing between
never and always).

> I find it interesting that it has not been taken
> advantage of more often (and, for the record, I'm one of those
> who has taken advantage of it).  

For heuristic value ... Do you think there is a correlation between
restricting ourselves to formats which are good for protocol
specifications but not much else, and the skew in our success record
toward problems solved by protocol specifications as opposed to the
really complex system problems? :-)

By the way, I like emacs picture mode.  You can bind the keypad keys
so that e.g. "3" means "draw toward the upper right".

swb

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]