[rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt

Thomas Clausen ietf at thomasclausen.org
Tue Jun 24 06:26:17 PDT 2014


On Jun 24, 2014, at 15:16, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-06-24 15:10, Thomas Clausen wrote:
>> Well yes, it is easy (well, relatively) to come up with an alternative format that satisfies my workflow — or an alternative format that satisfies yours, for that matter. That’s not the point, however.
>> 
>> The point of a specification is interoperability. In this case, the RFC format should be what ensures that you and I can interoperate on “a spec”.
>> 
>> If for me to review (or implement) your spec, I’d have to know and/or adopt your workflow, formats and tools that go with it, then I foresee deep trouble.
>> 
>> As Chris say in another post, not all of us can chose our tools all the time.
>> 
>> I keep going back to this: how can I *precisely* point to what I want?
>> 
>> If in my “alternative format" I spot a bug in “line 17 on page 33”, how do I convey that to you?
> 
> You send a link to the section, and quote the text excerpt you are concerned with.
> 
>> Apparently, someone has decided to do away with both page numbers and fixed line lengths……so what, do I count characters (we still have characters, right?) from the beginning of the document?
>> 
>> Do I hope that you have put a section anchor in that’s useful?
> 
> Section anchors will be autogenerated when not specified in the source.
> 
>> Do I need to convince you to either use my “alternative format” (burden on you, who should spend time fixing your protocol - and see the previous comment about “not all of us free to choose our tools all the time") or do I need to use your “alternative format” (burden on me, who kindly reviews your doc - and see “choose our tools all the time” comment, again).
>> 
>> I think that the goals are noble, but I fear that we’re throwing out something that works for some pie-in-the-sky.
> 
> For all practical purposes, the "tool" you'll need is something that can display HTML. I seriously believe that's not a big burden.

You may not see it, but you’re really trying to force your way of working onto everybody else here, assuming that the (kind of) tools that satisfy you will also satisfy everybody else.

To take but one example from above.

>> If in my “alternative format" I spot a bug in “line 17 on page 33”, how do I convey that to you?
> 
> You send a link to the section, and quote the text excerpt you are concerned with.

That’s wonderful, except that that excludes (or, at least, renders a LOT more labor intensive) “working on paper”….for example.




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list