[rfc-i] draft-rfc-image-files-00

Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= ah at tr-sys.de
Tue Aug 26 12:26:40 PDT 2008


Hello,
your new I-D, draft-rfc-image-files-00, seems to be a good idea
and, IMHO, it comes at the right moment (see below).

First of all, I appreciate the idea of picking the best of what
we already have (this should make the proposal acceptable even
to dedicated traditionalists), and come up with a solution that
hopefully makes the job of authors and the RFC Editor team easier,
when full-fledged images really are needed for clarity.

The larger challenge is placed on the side of the tools to manage
the new files -- at the I-D repository plus datatracker, at the
RFC Editor site, and at tools.ietf.org --, but that has to be
resolved and done only once...

As noted in the draft, companion rfcnnnn.pdf files in the past
were a source of trouble and inconsistencies.  (For instance,
didn't one of the most recent such .pdf show an earlier
publication month than the 'official' RFC, i.e. rfcnnnn.txt ?)

The solution envisioned in the draft has the smart property
of being consistent with the traditional (non-interactive)
repository mirroring and synchronization procedures, by simply
placing an additional new file type in the directories.

I suggest that the proposed changes for the RFC front matter (4.3)
should be closely coordinated with the current IAB proposal,
draft-iab-streams-header-boilerplates, to avoid racing conditions
between these two drafts during the document evolution and
publication processes, and for clarity and simplicity for the
audience.

The idea of requesting a table of Figures should be pursued even
more, also in the absence of such new companion .pdf file.
Supplying such a list regularly should help avoid the irregular
figure numbering patterns that can be observed in contemporary
I-Ds, and -- admittedly to a much lesser extent -- in RFCs.
[ If I don't err, there recently was a WG draft in IETF LC
containing (only) Figures 4, 5, 8, and 9 (or similar).  :-) ]


Finally, two notes on textual flaws I found:

(1)  Section 4.3

   s/lefthand footer/lefthand running header/g

[ Note that the "RFC nnnn" appears in the upper left corner
  of pg. 2 ff. of RFCs, not in the running page footers.  :-) ]

(2)  Section 6

First line:   s/acheme/scheme/


Kind regards,
  Alfred HÎnes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah at TR-Sys.de                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list