On 11. May 2025, at 12:07, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > Not a trivial job.
Wow. This discussion is totally in the weeds. Since RFC 1, our predecessors and us have been using graphics (*) to make normative statements in RFCs. When I started working in this field 45 years ago, I was sure we’d have better ways to describe protocols within five years. Like for power generation by nuclear fusion, I still intuitively think that, but I now have enough experience to doubt my intuition. Using a discussion about the right way to use SVG graphics in RFCs as a starting to point to place extremely unrealistic requirements on RFC creation in general sounds like a gigantic overreach. I haven’t said anything yet on this thread because I sat there with an open mouth, entirely perplexed. Of course it would be nice if we continued increasing the use of description techniques we have and that have been proven in practical use (as in, ABNF, CDDL, XDR, YANG; TLS PL, QUIC custom format, ...). Material for an IAB program? We might have something in five years! But pushing for a complete ban of the tools that have worked for us since RFC 1 is a complete non-starter. On 6. May 2025, at 15:46, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote: > > I understand, and I agree that it cannot be fixed quickly or easily. > > That said, let's have a policy to do better going forward. That’s more like it. Bonus points when this policy doesn’t turn into another form of author hostility. It can’t be more than a nudge. Grüße, Carsten (*) I haven’t checked when the first RFC came out that actually used ASCII art (not just retroactively like in RFC 1), but that doesn’t actually matter for this discussion. -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
