On Wed, May 7, 2025, at 00:09, Michael Richardson wrote: > I think that the packet diagrams *are* normative as to the structure of the > packet structure. But that we should never put BCP14 language in the diagram.
I think that many people think of packet diagrams as normative, but I'm convinced that this is both inaccurate and unnecessary. Consider ASN.1 or other schema languages, which are - to a very broad approximation - accessible. Those can be normative. I don't think that ASCII art can be, except in a few quite narrow cases. The normative purpose in those cases is probably better served by a formal schema language. In comparison, most of our packet diagrams are not and cannot be. RFC 791 is perhaps unique in that it describes a totally fixed structure. But most other protocols are not that way. There are variable-length portions, optional fields, extension headers, and other things that require text to explain what is going on. The diagram includes hints with "..." and "[]" and other conventions. All of which it to say that packet diagrams are often closer to *illustration* than specification. If we are to achieve our accessibility goals, there are two angles that we should consider concurrently: * Alternative text descriptions of diagrams. I personally find these tedious to generate and often question the value of them. * Ensuring that the text contains a complete specification. This is the attitude that was drilled into me and I've become convinced that it works. It's possibly the only thing that works reliably. -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
