Fixed font v multiple fonts

Steve Silverman steves at shentel.net
Sun Jul 6 19:57:00 CEST 2003


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: problem-statement-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:problem-statement-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 5:58 PM
> To: 'Brian E Carpenter'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: 'problem-statement at alvestrand.no'
> Subject: RE: Fixed font v multiple fonts
>
>
>
> > 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
>
>




More information about the Problem-statement mailing list