Subject: RE: Fixed font v multiple fonts

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:58:25 -0700

> Against this is is the lack of italics or shading to 
> distinguish symbols
> and examples from text; that is certainly an advantage in GGF 
> documents.

>From my point of view it is almost impossible to accurately compare a
cryptographic algorithm described in the litterature with the alleged same
algorithm in an IETF RFC.

Subscripts, superscripts etc. are part of the notation we use for our work.
Use of R_AS etc is simply not an acceptable substitute.

One of the reasons that the IETF has produced poor specs is that it has
resolutely refused to apply formal methods of protocol design to the
process. Adopting a document format that actively prevents the use of any
formal specification language prevents anyone even trying.

		Phill

---

From: "Steve Silverman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 18:57:00 -0400

While I agree that the draft text format is hard to read and hard to
work with (Other groups I have worked with
allowed standard Word Processor input) and I would really prefer being
able to use a
decent word processor to write drafts, I think that this issue is well
down on the list of problems in the IETF.

Far more important is:

o	The lack of a formal democratic (or quasi-democratic)
decision-making process.
o	A serious attempt at architectural work before detailed coding is
specified.
o	Various issues that have been mentioned on this list.

Steve Silverman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 5:58 PM
> To: 'Brian E Carpenter'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: [email-masked]'
> Subject: RE: Fixed font v multiple fonts
>
>
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:12:28 -0400

> cryptographic algorithm described in the litterature with the alleged
> same algorithm in an IETF RFC.

last I knew it was still possible to publish RFCs in PostScript, or
perhaps even PDF, as an alternate to the ASCII version.  I've even had 
reasonable luck with producing I-Ds in multiple formats from the same
revisable source.  it might take a bit of special handling by the RFC
editor but the case you cite seems like adequate justification.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:17:18 -0400

> o	The lack of a formal democratic (or quasi-democratic)

Technical quality, fairness, expedience are all valid goals, probably in
that order.  I don't view democracy as a valid goal, nor the absence of
democracy as a problem.   That's why we don't make decisions by voting.

Keith

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 19:07:27 -0700

My understanding is that PDF Documents require a Text Submittal as well. As
does PS.

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Fixed font v multiple fonts