[rfc-i] Illustrations, graphics, and normative-ness
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Fri Apr 27 09:39:42 PDT 2012
On 27 Apr 2012, at 13:36 , Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> This is a circular argument. You argue that because people have
> successfully sandbagged changes to the spec since Postel died that it
> has 'staying power'.
I don't believe I made that particular argument. Also, it's irrelevant what happened or did not happen to the RFC format along the way, the point is that you can still read the UDP specification that will be 32 years old today in your browser in its original and therefore normative form today and use simple tools on the document. That is a highly desirable feature. Of course that doesn't mean the format can't be improved, but for instance a move to PDF wouldn't be an improvement in my book.
More information about the rfc-interest