[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps

Stewart Bryant stbryant at cisco.com
Tue May 15 03:06:51 PDT 2012

On 14/05/2012 20:50, Tim Bray wrote:
> Draft-Edit, Review (what authors, ADs, and other interested parties
> worry about when writing and reviewing an I-D)
>      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 (and these are the things that matter, in
> the final analysis) have been seriously damaged.  Plus, getting
> agreement on technologies and editorial issues around graphics is
> hard.
You know similar arguments were put forward concerning the
horse vs the train and then the car, the development of aircraft
and much closer to home the phone service vs the Internet.

Graphics allows us an additional dimension in expression. For
example it allows us to use new (non-spoken) languages to
express the problems and the solutions. Math is the obvious
example, but there are others, both actual and yet to be developed.

I often work on overlay networks where I need to show how
one topology is instantiated on another. Without graphics it
is difficult to show "interesting" cases and I fear that we (IETF)
are unable to explore and develop develop solutions that
are robust in the corner cases.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list