--On Thursday, 28 August, 2008 15:43 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 07:23:06PM -0400, > John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote > a message of 49 lines which said: > >> one would still have the image problem (which is not really >> about pictures or decoration but about being able to express >> flows, relationships, and similar diagrams in a clear and >> concise way. > > To express flows, relationships, state machines, etc, I *much* > prefer formal languages to images. > > For an example for state machines, see > <http://www.cosmogol.fr/> Stephane, Nothing about this proposal, or the current RFC rules, prevent you from doing that. Other things might. In particular, my impression is that some members of the community aren't comfortable reading definitions in formal languages and would prefer other types of descriptions, one that they are sure they understand. Some of them might have even been on the IESG at one time or another. So you might get considerable push-back during Last Call. But, again, nothing in the "image" proposal prevents your describing state machines in the formal language of your choice or, for that matter, complaining on Last Call every time one is described in images. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf