Paul,
Section 2.4 of 2223bis
(www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt) says:
The ASCII plain text version (and its .txt.pdf facsimile) is
always the official specification, and it must adequately and
completely define the technical content.
...
The primacy of the ASCII version typically requires that the
critical diagrams and packet formats be rendered
as "ASCII art" in the .txt version.
However, secondary or alternative versions in PostScript and/or
PDF are provided for some RFCs, to allow the inclusion of fancy
diagrams, graphs, or characters that cannot possibly be rendered
in ASCII plain text
Bob Braden
for the RFC Editor
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 6:56 AM -0700 7/6/09, Bob Braden wrote:
This is not quite true... at least, it never used to be true. The restriction is/was that only the .txt version is normative; a .pdf version is non-normative and intended for explanatory material.
This is my understanding as well (I can't find an RFC that says one way or another, but I could have missed it). We have recent full-worked examples where the PDF for a standards-track document has valuable visual information, such as RFC 5059.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf