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

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearlove at baesystems.com
Tue Jun 24 10:09:02 PDT 2014

Seeing myself quoted, I should retract that plain text is useless. Plain text has been repurposed to a different purpose. There's so far no promise of something that fulfils some of its original properties.

Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove at baesystems.com<mailto:chris.dearlove at baesystems.com> | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

From: rfc-interest [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Clausen
Sent: 24 June 2014 17:18
To: Elwyn Davies
Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt

*** WARNING ***
This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
For information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in emails you receive, click here<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>.
If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.

On Jun 24, 2014, at 18:13, Elwyn Davies <elwynd at folly.org.uk<mailto:elwynd at folly.org.uk>> wrote:

On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 16:59 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:

On 2014-06-24 16:55, Joe Touch wrote:

On 6/24/2014 7:48 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

On 2014-06-24 16:35, Joe Touch wrote:

On 6/24/2014 4:04 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:

This does appear to convert plain text from normative to close to


I'm particularly concerned about the notion that figures that aren't
available as ASCII-art will be resolved using URLs.

Do you have a better suggestion?

Either provide an ASCII-art version of the figure or *require* that the
descriptive text is normative and that the figure is supplemental only.

AFAIU, the latter is the intent, but I'm not sure whether this has been
captured in any RSE document yet.


Presumably this means that we are stuck with producing ASCII art
versions for some diagrams where it would be tedious to say everything
in words.  Protocol field diagrams and architecture block diagrams seem
to be two prime examples.

At present, I think we treat protocol field diagrams as normative at
least for the order of fields and to some extent for layout of fields
even if we don't have this idea written down.  We never (or at least
hardly ever) explicitly say that the words define the order of fields;
nor do the words say what bit positions fields have in the overall
protocol packet.

If I have understood correctly and we have to continue doing ASCII art
or add in many more words for such cases, I am not sure this is a gain.

Maybe the protocol field diagram is amenable to a specification language
that will generate the ASCII art or some SVG alternative according to
output rendering.

Message flow diagrams and architecture/structure block diagrams are more

I am sure there must be tools out there that will do most of this


Not sure if you are aware of it, but I do use this, for the occasions where I am feeling lazy and have a supported environment (Java VM) at hand:


Then, I pretty-print it by hand.



rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140624/fc50977e/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list