Stewart, I didn't want to go through all the RFCs to find a specific example, but I distinctly recall seeing an RFC at one point that had "figures" which contained only the text "see associated PS version". However, I know I can't expect anyone to take my word for it. However, there was an easy way to get around that. I simply ftp'd all 48 of the RFCs that are available in PS format. I am still somewhat at a loss to understand why there are none in PDF, but the observation that other formats may be used obviously still stands. The very first RFC available in PS was RFC 1119. Surprisingly enough, the entire contents of the ASCII version is as follows: 'RFC-1119 "Network Time Protocol (Version 2) Specification and Implementation" is available only in PostScript form in the file RFC1119.PS' So, what exactly are we arguing about? :-) -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@xxxxxxxxx] --> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:19 PM --> To: Gray, Eric --> Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag --> [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves] --> --> Gray, Eric wrote: --> --> >Brian, --> > --> > I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have --> >not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into --> >trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to --> >which of the steps we are currently working on. --> > --> > Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second --> >step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with --> >a firm "none." --> > --> > --> --> That is not true, we don't address the need to include diagrams. --> --> - Stewart. --> --> > This is - IMO - the basis for the apparent stodgy --> >resistance to change. --> > --> >-- --> >Eric --> > --> >--> -----Original Message----- --> >--> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] --> >--> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter --> >--> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:36 AM --> >--> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand --> >--> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx --> >--> Subject: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: --> >--> Consensus based on reading tea leaves] --> >--> --> >--> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --> >--> > --> >--> > --> >--> > --On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein --> >--> > <yaakov_s@xxxxxxx> wrote: --> >--> > --> >--> >> The only thing I am sure about is --> >--> >> that --> >--> >> consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly --> >--> as it is. --> >--> > --> >--> > --> >--> > I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus. --> >--> > --> >--> > I do, however, see a rather strong --> >--> consensus-of-the-speakers against --> >--> > using MS-Word document format for anything "official". --> >--> --> >--> I think we need to tackle this whole issue, if we do decide to --> >--> tackle it, in a much more systematic way. --> >--> --> >--> - what are our functional requirements? --> >--> - which of them are not met today? --> >--> - what are the possible solutions, and what is their practical --> >--> and operational cost? --> >--> - which, if any, solutions should we adopt, on what timescale? --> >--> --> >--> I believe that if we took a systematic approach like --> that, the issue --> >--> of how we determine consensus would be broken into enough small --> >--> steps that it really wouldn't be an issue. --> >--> --> >--> Brian --> >--> --> >--> --> >--> _______________________________________________ --> >--> Ietf mailing list --> >--> Ietf@xxxxxxxx --> >--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> >--> --> > --> >_______________________________________________ --> >Ietf mailing list --> >Ietf@xxxxxxxx --> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> > --> > --> > --> > --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf