[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format

Peter Koch pk at DENIC.DE
Sun Apr 22 03:02:05 PDT 2012

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 03:11:26PM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
> I observe that several of your baskets include
> " * Need to be able to include complex graphics/equations"
> I think it may not be accurate to conflate these two.


> think it is actively beneficial to force authors to describe protocols
> in clear English without recourse to pictures.

and +1;

Also, the lists provided for discussion tend to favor change based on
the, naturally biased, discussion on this list.  I, for one, am not
convinced we need anything but i18n, where the most compelling argument
for that IMHO is the already mentioned capability to provide examples
for protocols that use non-ASCII characters.

I am also further confused why the lists contained items for internet-drafts,
since those are solely IETF business.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list