Subject: RE: Source Format of RFCs

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 08:43:46 -0700 (MST)

> ASCII is our 90% solution. Why can't we stick with what we have and allow
> an additional alternative format for authors who wish to add pictures?
>
> The text is what we are standardizing. ASCII is good enough for that. The
> pictures are for elucidation and should be optional. Since it's optional,
> leave it up to the author to publish in whatever format they want. If I'm
> an author of a draft and I want to include a picture to describe something,
> I might include a Word, ps, PDF or XXX format file as I see fit.

If the pictures and the text disagree, which is authoritative?  If the
pictures are not required to define the standard, why include them?  If
the pictures are required to define the standard, of what use is a version
of a standard without some required information?   There are compelling
reasons why the other standards bodies go through their gyrations to
produced "normative references."  Those reasons are also why RFC's include
so much repeated boilerplate.

Of course, if you're talking about documents that would be more at
home in a trade rag keeping ads of competators from being too close
together, then such considerations are irrelevant.

> ...
> draft-holdrege-rfc-graphics-pdf-00.txt
> draft-holdrege-rfc-graphics-msword-00.txt
> draft-holdrege-rfc-graphics-ps-00.txt

Doesn't it seem odd to have a ".txt" file that is not text?  What
is wrong with old naming convention used to relate the existing
Postscript RFC's to their ASCII versions and vice versa?

] Lets have a document with the possibilty of Meta information, the
] basic doccument displays fine on my Palm Pilot, ZX81, or SGI
] but with an XML enabled reader references become hyperlinks, docs
] are easily searched by author, an index is swiftly compiled.

Useful indeces cannot be "swiftly compiled."  It is hard to find the right
uses of the right words to list, and that effort requires a human who
understands the text, not a computer.  However, if you want full text
inversion, then you already have it with `grep` on ASCII.

] Idea 2 though looks like a win - win.  The simple ASCII RFC can
] be extracted by stripping out the tags easily, a CGI on the web 
] site can do that when you request the ASCII download.  RFC space
] gains a structure that will make it easy to browse around a
] subject.  It will be more likely that RFC users check references
] when they are there as an imediate link rather than make a mental
] note to have a look later then get distracted.  The MultiMedia 
] crew can render beautiful headings in hand tooled illuminated 32
] point fonts.  

Again, what is the authoritative document?  If the pictures are
frills, then omit them entirely.  If the pictures are required,
then they cannot be skipped in any form or version of the document.
Similarly, if hand tooled illuminated 32 point fonts are required,
they must be present, and if they are not required, then there is
no reason to including them at all.

As for checking references in an existing RFC to another, I don't find it
necessary to make any mental notes.  I just switch to another to the other
file in the same or another window.  Hyperlinks are frills, unless you
believe that library research was impossible until their invention.

A major cause for this controversy is the continuing confusion or
disagreement about the purpose of the documents published by the IETF.
If RFC's define network protocol standards, then you must have a well
defined format, and you do not need fancy pictures or hyperlinks.  If the
RFC series is a kind of trade-rag or netnewsgroup, then many formats are
reasonable, and no one really cares if there many versions of a document.
The form of the filler between trade-rag ads and netnews articles is often
at least important than the substance.   If the IETF would stop publishing
vanity RFC's, then much of this controversy would be quenched.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 13:50:27 -0800

>so much repeated boilerplate.

The author decides what is authoritative. The author writes the drafts. In
short the author is totally reponsible for his/her draft. Nothing new here.

If the author wishes to include pictures, that is up to him/her. They do it
anyway today at their own web site. Re-read my note about this scheme being
for I-D's and not necessarily for RFC's.

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 13:50:27 -0800