[rfc-i] Two drafts showing the advantage of the new format

Phillip Hallam-Baker phill at hallambaker.com
Wed Aug 16 18:07:41 PDT 2017


On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com> wrote:

> On 8/16/17 7:30 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On 16 Aug 2017, at 17:22, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com>
> <adam at nostrum.com> wrote:
>
> The diagrams in the new format will not allow colors. You're going to want
> to use some other mechanism to indicate what you are currently intending
> color to mean.
>
> Perhaps we should let IETF participants see and decide for themselves?
>
>
> The IETF did that during the various discussions on draft-iab-svg-rfc,
> which became RFC 7996.
>
>
> Well, to be clear, it was established earlier than that; cf.
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6949#section-3.2>
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6949#section-3.2>, list item 8. This is
> some pretty long-running consensus.
>
Design documents have always been subject to revision in the light of
implementation experience.

Let us see how long the consensus lasts when people can see the consequence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20170816/4e7dfc6d/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list