[rfc-i] Text no longer definitive (was Re: Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2)

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Feb 18 11:43:30 PST 2014


On 19/02/2014 08:04, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 2/18/2014 10:34 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> Regarding artwork, ASCII or otherwise, the debate as to whether it
>> should be normative in an IETF sense is ongoing.  The last time I beat
>> my head against that particular wall, I believe the end result was that
>> we (the RFC Editor and the IESG) would encourage the use of artwork as
>> informative only, but recognize that artwork sometimes must be normative
>> to a spec.
> 
> 
> wfm.  interesting approach.  tnx.

The words make sense, but somehow I'd like to see a worked example of
*necessarily* normative artwork, and whether it is canonical as ASCII
art or as SVG.

I suspect that in practice we have many cases of normative ASCII art
for bit layouts; describing bit layouts in English is painful and
error-prone, so why bother?

(IMNSHO, a bit layout in ASCII art with a fixed-width font is just
about as unambiguous as you can get, other than using a formal
language.)

   Brian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list