The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>]

I appologize for adding to this thread.  I just want to point out some
of the reasoning behind the decision to stay with ASCII.  Please don't
Cc the list on any replies.

Rob and Jeff both make excellent points.  The main point is that word
processing formats are 1) proprietary, 2) not documented accurately if
at all, 3) not stable, 4) incompatible between products and often
versions of the same product.

In 1991 there was a push to create RFCs using the most popular word
processor of the time.  That word processor was wordperfect.  If the
proponents of that move had been successful, many of the RFCs created
in the next few years would be unreadable today.

ASCII is also the most readable format for the visually impaired.  I
know of at least one blind person who is a regular IETF contributor, a
highly productive individual, and an RFC author.  Lets be considerate.

Scott made the most important point.  This conversation belongs
elsewhere, has already gone on elsewhere, and should stop on this
list.  I just wanted to add some of the reasoning why proprietary word
processor formats have consistenty been rejected for the benefit of
those who might keep this conversation going without knowing the
history behind the decision or reading the archives.

Curtis

fyi - Many people use nroff for RFCs.  I use latex and rfc.sty macros
modified for latex2e and for reasonable output using latex2html.  I
also use latex for slides in case Neil still wants to know, and yes
Neil, latex source is readable ASCII and very easily exchanged among
authors and modified as source.  Things like grep and all of the
advanced search and replace and macro capabilities of emacs work on
the source file.  And very important for documents with multiple
authors, diff works on the source files.


    Message-Id: <200011171236.HAA04987@iol.unh.edu>
    From: Rob Blais <rdb@iol.unh.edu>
    Subject: Re: Creating .txt with IETF Format
    To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com
    Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:36:43 -0500 (EST)
    Cc: mpls@UU.NET

    Would it not be hypocritical of the IETF to both create and promote
    open specifications (RFCs) while at the same time advocating or at least
    accepting a proprietary document format such as MS-Word?  As one who 
    has wasted far too much time on the blue screen of death and finally
    made the switch back to Unix, I would very much be opposed to any
    attempts to change the current open and portable document distribution
    practices.  The IETF has reached almost Zen-like perfection in management
    of documents.  I wish all standards organizations were this good!  It is
    the epitomy of the KISS principle in action.  

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  It sure doesn't look broken to me. 
    I vote in favor of keeping the status quo. 

    /rob

    - ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rob Blais                  rdb@iol.unh.edu          "The Internet?
    MPLS Consortium Manager    Phone: 603-862-4569       Is that thing
    ATM Operations Manager     Fax:   603-862-4181       still around?"
    UNH InterOperability Lab   http://www.iol.unh.edu/   -Homer Simpson
     
    Message-ID: <EB5FFC72F183D411B3820006295734291168E0@r2d2.axiowave.com>
    From: Jeff Parker <jparker@axiowave.com>
    To: "'neil.2.harrison@bt.com'" <neil.2.harrison@bt.com>
    Cc: mpls@UU.NET
    Subject: RE: Creating .txt with IETF Format
    Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:36:54 -0500
     
    > I find it kind of weird that the vast majority (read as 
    > overwhelming consensus and far from rough running code') 
    > use Word/ppt and yet we are forced to use this outdated 
    > mode for producing IDs.   

    I know this is off task, but I'm surprised that the 
    ultimate IETF dictum, conservative in what you send,
    has not been invoked.  

    I notice that no one complains about being unable to read
    RFC 12.  

    In the past, Microsoft has had trouble reading old 
    versions of Word documents.  I spent far longer than 
    I would like to admit last spring revising a course so
    that current versions of Power Point could read old
    versions.  I shudder to think of the task of revising 
    old RFCs everytime Redmond decides we need to upgrade.

    - - jeff parker
    - - axiowave networks