OK, sounds like we're good to go. I'll wait until tomorrow for any last
gasps and then turn the cranks and push the buttons.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
On 17 May 2025, at 4:08, Eliot Lear wrote:
Me too
On 16.05.2025 22:27, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
This works for me.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 17-May-25 08:13, Alexis Rossi wrote:
Hi, just wanted to bump this to see if we have any more issues to
iron out.
Here's the diff:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-editorial-rswg-svgsinrfcs-01
<https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-editorial-rswg-svgsinrfcs-01>
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 7:55 PM Alexis Rossi
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Hello,
Since we have moved the discussion about normative info in
imagery to rfc-interest [1], I am hoping that this new draft will be
ready for WG Last Call, but let's find out if we have other issues
to address.
New draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-editorial-rswg-svgsinrfcs/01/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-editorial-rswg-svgsinrfcs/01/>
Changes from last draft:
The first two policy requirements now read:
- SVGs may be included in RFCs to help explain a concept more
clearly, but should not be the only representation of that concept.
A good faith effort should be made to assure that descriptions of
concepts - which might include protocols, formats, or system
architectures - are fully represented in the text of the RFC. At
minimum, SVGs should be consistent with the text.
- SVGs must remain static after publication of the RFC, so
there may be interactive, multimedia, or other elements that cannot
be included in SVG diagrams.
Any other issues to discuss?
Alexis
[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/QKmVJB0bzREMBq1A8w4kNf4Gvr8/
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/QKmVJB0bzREMBq1A8w4kNf4Gvr8/>
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
