On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 07:46:42PM +,
Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 73 lines which said:
For example you could say the following in text : [long and
complicated example deleted]
For such examples (do note that your example is an illustration of a
point and
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:35:51PM -0500,
Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 211 lines which said:
The reality is that putting things entirely in pictures means that
less validation of the intent of the picture is possible.
Automatic validation (by a program) is not possible
It's trivial for a human, but not for a computer.
Many things trivial for humans are not trivial for computers.
The kind of harvesting you are talking about is trivial for a human from any
format as long as your editor can paste while losing formatting.
What we are seeing is increasing use of
Hi,
What we are seeing is increasing use of fully automated tools
that don't
have humans identifying which octets are MIB and which are
code. You can't
do that with plain ASCII.
MIB modules may be a bad example for you to use. All MIB modules start
with a BEGIN character string and end
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 08:09:10AM -0500, Brian Rosen wrote:
It's trivial for a human, but not for a computer.
Many things trivial for humans are not trivial for computers.
The kind of harvesting you are talking about is trivial for a human from any
format as long as your editor can paste
Bob Braden wrote:
*
* Normative figures perhaps. Normative equations definitely.
Scott,
How about Sections 4.2.3.3 and 4.2.3.4 of RFC 1122 (1889), for examples
of readable equations in ASCII? I my experience, normative protocol
technical specifications rarely need equations much more
...
What we are seeing is increasing use of fully automated tools that don't
have humans identifying which octets are MIB and which are code. You can't
do that with plain ASCII.
You can do that with meta-data encoded in plain ASCII. In fact, that
would work better for automated extraction
Ted
You are arguing that we have been producing documents for a long time with
only primitive tools and we don't need to make any new tools. You are
losing that argument. We are increasing the number, and usefulness of
tools, and most of us appreciate these tools and want more of them. The
sorry, couldn't help it
You mean, like xml?
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Alternative formats for IDs
...
What we are seeing is increasing use of fully
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 07:46:42PM +,
Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 73 lines which said:
For example you could say the following in text : router A connects
to router B and D, the cost from A to B is 2, and the cost from A to
D is 4. Router B connects to router C.
Ted,
I think we disagree on fine points and agree on the bigger
points.
As Melinda Shore aptly put it ('objection to proposed change
to consensus' on Saturday, 1/7/2006, at 10:15 AM Eastern Time):
'Consensus process leads to decisions being made through synthesis
and
Burger, Eric wrote:
IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea.
We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the idea will work.
We produce lots of half-baked documents with little basis in working
code. Then folks try implementing what's been spec'ed, find it
Hi -
I'm conducting an informal, non-scientific survey with the aim of trying
to understand within an order of magnitude how much it costs folks to
contribute to open source software.
If any of you have 30 seconds and feel like answering 3 questions, please
mail your responses back to me.
IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea.
...
Standardize stuff that already works -- what a concept.
...
I don't care how the technology gets developed.
IRTF, vendors, universities, whatever.
The current model in the IETF appears to be: Your running
At 9:45 AM -0500 1/10/06, Brian Rosen wrote:
Do you have any idea how painful it is to build any kind of product that has
good management simply because there is no library of MIBs, with references
to documents? There isn't even a LIST of IETF MIBs. You can't figure out
if a document has a MIB
IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea.
...
Standardize stuff that already works -- what a concept.
...
I don't care how the technology gets developed.
IRTF, vendors, universities, whatever.
The current model in the IETF appears to be: Your running
Stewart,
Yes, you are correct. But, if you had correctly understood
the comment you quote below, you would realize that we're clearly
in agreement already - at least on that aspect of the discussion.
:-)
My point is that we make inclusion of elaborate figures more
Stewart,
You address this to me - though I do not make these rules.
However, I will do my best to answer your question. In the
case you pose below, almost incomprehensible is the key phrase.
Had you not qualified incomprehensible, the answer would be no,
at least IMO.
Eric,
--- [SNIP ---
-- IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on
-- an idea. We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the
-- idea will work. We produce lots of half-baked documents with
-- little basis in working code. Then folks try implementing
-- what's been
Stewart == Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think these are valuable inputs as well. There are people
involved; whether these people are happy, whether they will
continue to work, are important factors. Of course there are
religious arguments on the other side: I
Normally, I would agree, but in one area in particular where I'm active,
RAI, I've seen it all. There has been a ton of work that was
interesting and nice to have.
Also, I am a big proponent of microeconomics, which would have rational
actors only put forth and push stuff clearly needed for
On 1/10/06 12:55 PM, Burger, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Normally, I would agree, but in one area in particular where I'm active,
RAI, I've seen it all. There has been a ton of work that was
interesting and nice to have.
I'm going to hazard a guess here and suggest that that area has
more
I strongly disagree with David's characterization of the IETF, his
characterization of how things should work, his claim that the problem
he has identified should be fixed and the proposed solution.
Consider this a vote of wrong direction. If it becomes apparent
that David is attracting
Hi. I'd hoped to avoid this, but a number of people both on and
off-list have asked me to discuss the issue of accessibility of documents.
for those who may not know, I'm blind.
I try and avoid such discussions. It is fairly clear to me that my
standards of accessibility are different than
Stewart == Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stewart For example you could say the following in text : router
Stewart A connects to router B and D, the cost from A to B is 2,
Stewart and the cost from A to D is 4. Router B connects to
Stewart router C. The cost to router
Hi, Sam,
Thank you for taking the time to explain this stuff to us. It is very
helpful.
Just on your last point:
pictures: I guess someone might want to include a photo or other
picture in an IETF spec. I'd kind of like to know why. Be sure to
explain what the point of the photo is in the
--On tirsdag, januar 10, 2006 12:26:22 -0600 James M. Polk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:55 PM 1/10/2006 -0500, Burger, Eric wrote:
Also, I am a big proponent of microeconomics, which would have rational
actors only put forth and push stuff clearly needed for products.
HOWEVER, in the
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Here is the Graphviz code, to compare (I also attached the
automatically produced PNG but Graphviz can make PDF or SVG
as well)
Nice, I've always loved graph theory. Now let it colour the
shortest path fromn B to D, and then ask it for some decent
ASCII art
--On Tuesday, 10 January, 2006 16:58 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I'm also thinking that if an RFC is bad enough, having
pictures of authors/editors might make it easier to recognize
the guilty parties and organize a lynch mob, and that might do
more to improve our
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 10 January, 2006 16:58 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I'm also thinking that if an RFC is bad enough, having
pictures of authors/editors might make it easier to recognize
the guilty parties and organize a
Paul Hoffman wrote:
If any of those features came free or very cheap, that
would be great.
JFTR: The last xml2rfc version under test (pre3) supported
to validate ABNF on the fly for artwork type=abnf if the
source asks for strict processing.
Bye, Frank
I'd mostly agree if this was a one off, but it's not; it requires continuous
effort to maintain. My experience that manual is usually cheapest if it
only has to be done once, and automation is cheapest if it has to be
continuously maintained. YMMV.
Most of the harvesting of sections of things
Dear Dave and Lucy,
watch how you use the word lynch please. As the oldest of six
I'm a bit *sensitive* to mob comments. ;-)
Lucy, I suspect that they merely were making a spelling error, since I'm
sure they were referring to folk who are truly essential, and therefore
qualify as linch
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'Media Type Registration for SMPTE Material Exchange Format (MXF) '
draft-edwards-mime-mxf-01.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures '
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Alex Zinin and Bill Fenner.
A URL of
35 matches
Mail list logo