[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps
stbryant at cisco.com
Tue May 15 03:11:33 PDT 2012
On 14/05/2012 23:27, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 14 May 2012, at 21:50 , Tim Bray wrote:
>> Need to be able to include graphics/images
>> Do not agree. IETF has done without this for a long time and I haven’t
>> heard a single convincing narrative about how usability of specs or
>> interoperability of results
> I agree with this.
> However, non-normative images are allowed now, and forbidding them would be an uphill struggle that I'm willing to forego. So as long as we don't end up in a situation where the text says "see image A for the header layout" I can probably live with this.
This sounds like progress.
At the moment the image capable version of an RFC is no allowed to be
the normative version.
If we could agree that the image capable version of the RFC is allowed
to be the normative version, but the images themselves are either not
or are normative only if explicitly stated, then I think there is a way
More information about the rfc-interest