[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format
hallam at gmail.com
Sun Apr 22 05:11:42 PDT 2012
I think discussion here is biased towards the status quo as people who
are put off by having to work with 1960 technology have left.
It will be easy enough to produce the old format if there is a demand.
RFCs have attempted to present diagrams from the start. The results
are confused and confusing.
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Peter Koch <pk at denic.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 03:11:26PM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
>> I observe that several of your baskets include
>> " * Need to be able to include complex graphics/equations"
>> I think it may not be accurate to conflate these two.
>> think it is actively beneficial to force authors to describe protocols
>> in clear English without recourse to pictures.
> and +1;
> Also, the lists provided for discussion tend to favor change based on
> the, naturally biased, discussion on this list. I, for one, am not
> convinced we need anything but i18n, where the most compelling argument
> for that IMHO is the already mentioned capability to provide examples
> for protocols that use non-ASCII characters.
> I am also further confused why the lists contained items for internet-drafts,
> since those are solely IETF business.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest