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

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Tue Jun 24 11:15:11 PDT 2014

On 6/24/2014 9:13 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 16:59 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2014-06-24 16:55, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> 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.

Any item that has more than one representation begs the question of 
"which is normative?" *when* (not if) the text and figure differ.

When we're writing a spec, IMO the text ought to be normative, and the 
text alone ought to be sufficient (even if tedious).


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list