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