If you do not know how to do that with Word, there is help to get.
Yes, in RFC 3285.
3285 Using Microsoft Word to create Internet Drafts and RFCs. M.
Gahrns, T. Hain. May 2002. (Format: TXT=34556 bytes) (Status:
INFORMATIONAL)
[YJS] Yes of course we all have used that.
Yaakov Stein wrote:
However, the text objected to in this case argues that
this process should be extended by a process of counting the
people who don't publicly participate in the discussion
(snip)
We proposed gauging interest by a show of hands at a plenary
meeting, rather than by the
As far as I can tell, Microsoft has no idea what ASCII means. You would
expect that Save As... Text Only would produce clean ASCII from a
pretty Word file, but it does not. Instead, you get a file which
contains various 8-bit encodings of common characters such as curly
quotation marks, en- and
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 06:57 +0200 Yaakov Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I have never had a problem opening an old file
with an up-to-date version of the SW. The problems
arise when you try to do the reverse. That makes sense
of course, since if you could do everything with the
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing I am sure about is
that
consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly as it is.
I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus.
I do, however, see a
Michael Thomas wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[]
Sigh. Can I suggest that a little exponential backoff on
all parts may be appropriate? As one of the authors of the
dkim draft, this has been an extremely painful thread to
watch.
Correct. This is way beyond the point of being
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 06:57 +0200 Yaakov Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I have never had a problem opening an old file
with an up-to-date version of the SW. The problems
arise when you try to do the reverse. That makes sense
of course, since if you could
On 01/04/2006 17:09, Julian Reschke wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
If we use a XML format, why the very large and complexe (700 pages)
OpenDocument and not our RFC 2629?
Indeed. Although, at some point of time we'll have also to realize that
there most people when they say RFC2629 they
Brian - you've hit on an important point here. It strikes me that the
process for defining our own document standards has no fundamental
differences from the process for defining any other standard. Why shouldn't
this archival document standard be developed and adopted as a Standard in
the same
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing I am sure about is
that
consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly as it is.
I'm pretty sure there's no such
Happy New Year to all!
Many thanks to Yaakov for his excellent handling of the list discussion. I'm
not very surprised with the way it has gone. Déjà vu all over again :-)
The challenge is to focus the discussion to try to reach consensus on moving
forward with a process change, i.e., we
On Jan 5, 2006, at 09:25, Ash, Gerald R ((Jerry)) wrote:
I'd suggest we try to reach consensus first on the following:
Alternative format(s) for IDs, in addition to ASCII text, should be
allowed.
One requirement/motivation for this change (as set forth in the ID)
is to be able to include
Firstly, I'll observe that this is outside the strict scope
of the Secretariat SOW, since it covers the process cradle-to-grave,
including WG, IESG, IANA and RFC Editor actions.
Secondly, yes, dashboard metrics are a good idea, and are on the
Tools team agenda, but often the devil is in the
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 08:25 -0600 Ash, Gerald R
\\(Jerry\\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Happy New Year to all!
Many thanks to Yaakov for his excellent handling of the list
discussion. I'm not very surprised with the way it has gone.
Déjà vu all over again :-)
The challenge is
On Thursday, January 05, 2006 07:03:39 AM +0200 Yaakov Stein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[YJS] Actually, cuneiform on clay tablets and hieroglyphics on marble
stelai seem to be better than paper if you really want your message to
last a long time.
I'm not convinced clay is better than paper;
Title: RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus"
Yaakov,
Here's the text that says "all
that"...
"It is much more likely to hear from the
veryvocal people who are
opposed to the change. That is,
assuming 1000s of participants
on the IETF discussion list,
perhaps 20 expressed
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 08:25 -0600 "Ash, Gerald R
\\(Jerry\\)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Happy New Year to all!
Many thanks to Yaakov for his excellent handling of the list
discussion. I'm not very surprised with the way it has gone.
Déjà vu all
On 01/05/2006 11:28 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
Even those of us who are strongly supportive of ASCII as our
primary base format and those who believe that the effort needed
to simplify illustrations and diagrams sufficiently that they
can be accurately represented in ASCII artwork is
Scott W Brim wrote:
For heuristic value ... Do you think there is a correlation between
restricting ourselves to formats which are good for protocol
specifications but not much else, and the skew in our success record
toward problems solved by protocol specifications as opposed to the
really
Brian,
I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have
not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into
trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to
which of the steps we are currently working on.
Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second
step
I agree. As usual we seem to be stuck in an infinite loop on this
mailing list with the cycle being somewhere between 6 months and 3 years.
Eliot
Gray, Eric wrote:
Brian,
I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have
not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into
Unless the IESG has changed the rules while I was not looking,
it has been permitted to post I-Ds in PDF in addition to ASCII
for some years.
BUT the pdf is not allowed to be normative.
Right. The ASCII version is the only normative format. Furthermore,
all diagrams, no matter how
Jerry,
And this is a déjà vu over and over again as well.
We could - in theory - allow draft versions in any
format an author chooses. It would make quite a mess of
the draft repository and - eventually - the RFC library.
But we need to agree on one or more versions
John,
I believe - for the record - that Post-Script is also
allowed.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of John C Klensin
-- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 11:28 AM
-- To: Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\); Yaakov Stein;
Gray, Eric wrote:
It is much more likely to hear from the very vocal people who are
opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants
on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed 'nays', even
strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in favor of
change.
While
I wonder if that time frame represents the amount of critical mass
turnover for these topics to be refreshed, but previous discussion
forgotten.
I don't know if there is something that would fulfill this roll, but from
40 feet back, here is a suggestion.
A bulletin board (Not BBS, but like an
Stewart,
You bring up a good point. I have been assuming that - since
IDs can be submitted in multiple formats - that the additional
formats would also become part of the RFC library on publication.
I just took a quick peek at the RFCs and there does not appear
to be a single
Gray, Eric wrote:
Brian,
I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have
not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into
trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to
which of the steps we are currently working on.
Quite frankly, I believe we can
Eliot Lear wrote:
I agree. As usual we seem to be stuck in an infinite loop on this
mailing list with the cycle being somewhere between 6 months and 3 years.
The fact that we keep coming back to this topic may be a message in
itself!
- Stewart
Eliot
Gray, Eric wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Scott Kitterman wrote:
As I understand it, one of the major concerns of the people pushing for
alternative formats is a desire to be able to include drawings and diagrams
with something other than ASCII art.
I don't believe that XML does much to help that.
It does in the
Stewart Bryant wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
I agree. As usual we seem to be stuck in an infinite loop on this
mailing list with the cycle being somewhere between 6 months and 3 years.
The fact that we keep coming back to this topic may be a message in
itself!
It reminds me of a pick your
On Jan 5, 2006, at 11:49, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Ken Raeburn wrote:
Personally, I'm skeptical that we'll find an alternative that
meets our requirements as well, but perhaps we'll wind up with
plain UTF-8 text or something.
How would I encode graphics in UTF-8?
Same as you do in ASCII
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 13:17 -0500 Gray, Eric
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stewart,
You bring up a good point. I have been assuming that -
since IDs can be submitted in multiple formats - that the
additional formats would also become part of the RFC library
on publication.
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 12:46 -0500 Gray, Eric
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I believe - for the record - that Post-Script is also
allowed.
It is indeed. And it, as well as PDF, are allowed in RFCs (see
earlier note).
As others have noted, an ASCII form is still required.
Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which
of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm none.
At some level that's clearly true, since RFCs are emerging at a brisk
clip.
I've seen two different sets of concerns.
One is that ASCII doesn't permit adequately
Thus spake Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gray, Eric wrote:
It is much more likely to hear from the very vocal people who are
opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants on the
IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed 'nays', even strong nays,
could be considered a clear
Sandy,
What you say is correct, as far as it goes. However,
the implication in the wording is that people disagreeing
with a proposal will post and people disagreeing with them
will not. This is the case - as you suggest - when there
is a clear default outcome.
In fact,
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 17:01 + Stewart Bryant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I find it interesting that it has not been taken
advantage of more often (and, for the record, I'm one of those
who has taken advantage of it). When it has been done for
artwork purposes, the artwork in
Stewart,
Of course it is. I think virtually everyone would like to live in
a perfect world and most of us recognize that this is not it.
Therefore, it is clear that - whatever we might say in any particular
argument - we all want things to get better. Consequently, proposals
to
Stewart,
I didn't want to go through all the RFCs to find a specific
example, but I distinctly recall seeing an RFC at one point that
had figures which contained only the text see associated PS
version. However, I know I can't expect anyone to take my word
for it.
However,
On Jan 5, 2006, at 11:31 AM, John Levine wrote:
Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which of
the requirements are not met today?) with a firm none.
One is that ASCII doesn't permit adequately beautiful pictures. If
that's the problem to be solved, it seems to me that
Gray, Eric wrote:
Sandy,
In fact, contrary to what we observe in nature, change
is not the default outcome in most human organizations.
That is because - as a careful analysis of this discussion
over the years will disclose - there are as many ways to go
with a change as there are
You say that a Unicode code point can be represented by %xABCD but that is not
spelt out in ABNF [RFC4234]. And when it refers to 'one printable character' as
'%x20-7E' I get the impressions that coded character sets like Unicode, with
more than 256 code points, do not fall within its remit. I
Sandy,
My point - as may be clearer in other posts - is that
the first question do we want change is a no-op at best.
Change is natural and inevitable whether we want it or not.
The first useful question is - paraphrasing what Brian said
- what do we need that we do not already have?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John C Klensin writes:
--On Thursday, 05 January, 2006 12:46 -0500 Gray, Eric
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I believe - for the record - that Post-Script is also
allowed.
It is indeed. And it, as well as PDF, are allowed in RFCs (see
earlier note).
As
See:
2.2. ABNF for IRI References and IRIs
in:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
Misha
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom.Petch
Sent: 05 January 2006 20:15
To: James Seng
Cc: ietf
Subject: ABNF Re: Troubles with UTF-8
You say
Sandy Wills wrote:
[..]
A simple mental experiment: If we have, say, 2000 readers, and we post
the question
Will the sun rise tomorrow? We think yes.
Then you invite ridicule upon anyone who says no.
However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word?
and 5
grenville armitage wrote:
However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word?
and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts No. Over the next few
minutes to
hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will
receieve these two emails. Many of the human
Sandy Wills wrote:
grenville armitage wrote:
However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word?
and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts No. Over the next few
minutes to
hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will
receieve these two emails. Many
(comments inline, but the summary is that _I_ read your words and
apparently get a different meaning from when _you_ read your words)
grenville armitage wrote:
Sandy Wills wrote:
grenville armitage wrote:
However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word?
A simple
Sandy Wills wrote:
someone (I think Brian Carpenter is the poor guy stuck with
this job) will post a simple statement and ask if the
statement has concensus. No multiple choice, no discussion,
just statement. I hope it happens soon...
The IETF should publish RFCs in the traditional text
Sandy Wills wrote:
[..]
A CfC usually follows a Discussion and has ONE (count 'em)
statement, by ONE (count 'em) person, expressing a clear value or
decision, asking for agreement or disagreement.
...asking for agreement or disagreement.
If it quacks like a question...
cheers,
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Producing good, portable PDF isn't obvious.
My recent experience is that I got a paper in PDF, though
plain text was more than enough for the paper, and
it included an e-mail address to which I send a mail. I used
Adobe original PDF reader (version 7.0) and, to make
The IETF ISMS Working Group will hold an interim meeting on February 13-14,
2006. The meeting will be hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
at 304 Vassar Street in Cambridge, MA USA.
The primary purpose of this meeting will be solving open issues that concern
Internet drafts
The IESG has decided that as of now, any IESG-approved
drafts that enter the AUTH48 state, where the RFC Editor
waits for final text approval from all listed authors,
may be released on the responsible AD's authority if
any authors have not responded after a reasonable time,
typically two weeks.
The IESG has evaluated the possibility of a RFC 3683 PR-action for
Dean Anderson.
Please see the following URL for the corresponding Last Call
message and associated information:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg38293.html
There was extensive discussion on the IETF list and
56 matches
Mail list logo
