> Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which > of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm "none." At some level that's clearly true, since RFCs are emerging at a brisk clip. I've seen two different sets of concerns. One is that ASCII doesn't permit adequately beautiful pictures. If that's the problem to be solved, it seems to me that a straightforward solution would be to allow authors to submit image files along with the ASCII text. I'd suggest requiring that the image format be GIF, since it's simple, stable, well documented, widely supported in both freeware and commercial software, and the patents have expired. (Or maybe PNG, any stable public format will do.) The other is that the editorial process is more tedious than it needs to be, because RFCs have a mandatory structure that plain ASCII doesn't express. RFC 2629 or 2629bis captures the structure while being well supported in free and commercial software and, in a pinch, legible without tools since it's ASCII underneath. This confirms to me that what we need to decide is what the problem is, since the solutions to each problem are straighforward. R's, John PS: I gather that clay is quite stable if properly fired, and is probably less subject to chipping and acid rain pitting than marble. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf