For many of the reasons Joel mentioned, I also do not support the experiment as stated in the draft. I want to amplify one point: Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Finally, this experiment will produce a set of RFCs which live forever > with the limitation that those RFCs do not have normative ASCII. What > if we decide that this is a bad idea? How do we fix it? A change from ASCII should not be a flag day, as this document would do to two WGs, but rather based on more experience retrieving the appropriate format. So for instance, it might be interesting if the RFC Editor made available HTML versions of documents produced with XML2RFC, with a caveat that the normative form is still ASCII. This also allows for the continued evolution of XML2RFC to include other objects in a more planned manner. The costs of doing this sort of thing are a concern, of course. I do think that ASCII art has its limits, particularly when it comes to mathematics. But I think a more gradual evolution is called for in this case, with more consideration given to not only the normative issue but all the others Joel raised. Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf