Subject: RE: Towards consensus on document format

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:42:33 -0700

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail dot com> wrote:

> 9) Ability to code names properly
> 10) Ability to write an intelligible document on internationalization
> issues
> ...
> 8, 9, 10) Only supported by HTML.

I continue to be puzzled by statements like this.  A plain-text file
encoded in UTF-8 can contain any Unicode character that an HTML document
can contain.

Note that I am not arguing in favor of plain text as the IETF standard. 
I just want to keep this part of the discussion real.  There is no
requirement anywhere that plain-text files may contain only ASCII
characters.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:18:41 +1300

On 2010-03-16 05:42, Doug Ewell wrote:
...
> requirement anywhere that plain-text files may contain only ASCII

That requirement is explicit for RFCs.

This was originally in RFC 2223 and its predecessors back to RFC825.
Now it's in
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style

Since we failed to get consensus even on the minor step proposed
by http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs,
I really don't see this conversation converging on a radical
change.

Also, PHB's list of options is tendentious (by referring
contemptuously to "teleprinter" format) and ambiguous
(since there is no such thing as "the" HTML format for RFCs).

As an archival format, I am still very happy with ASCII.
Guaranteed layout, trivially searchable. The tools team
HTML markup is nice, but redundant as far as archiving goes.

   Brian (who will once again regret having risen to the bait)

    Brian

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:14:31 -0600

Brian E Carpenter <brian dot e dot carpenter at gmail dot com> wrote:

>> Note that I am not arguing in favor of plain text as the IETF 
>> standard.  I just want to keep this part of the discussion real. 
>> There is no requirement anywhere that plain-text files may contain 
>> only ASCII characters.
>

It is explicit for RFCs, but not for plain-text files in general.  IETF 
could theoretically change the RFC requirement, although you are correct 
that given the non-acceptance of draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs, it seems 
unlikely.  The topic did come up again on the list, with the usual 
conflation of "ASCII" and "plain text."

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:22:03 +0100

On 16.03.2010 14:14, Doug Ewell wrote:
>>> standard. I just want to keep this part of the discussion real. There
>>> is no requirement anywhere that plain-text files may contain only
>>> ASCII characters.
>>

Indeed.

Speaking of which: did we ever *measure* the acceptance of 
draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs? As far as I recall, there was lots of support 
for it.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:36:22 -0700

> draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs? As far as I recall, there was lots of support

There were a few different proposals.  Some had support.  Others probably didn't.

What was missing was a directed exercise at trying to reach consensus.  As is 
usual for anything in front of the full IETF, a free-for-all exchange meets with 
various objections and there is no follow-through to try to resolve things.  Any 
momentum that might have built then dissipates.

For spontaneous efforts, like these, it would be helpful to get a facilitator 
appointed to serve something similar to the role of working group chair, to try 
to resolve differences and assess consensus.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:48:43 -0400

I agree, there did seem to be lots of support for it, including my own. 
But I don't think anyone really wanted to stand up and act as the "WG 
Chair" and declare concensus. After all, this is a basic infrastructure 
item that spans the entire IETF+IRTF+IAB space. Who is in charge of 
managing that entire community?

It seems like there should be a serious presentation of the topic at one 
of the upcoming plenaries, with subsequent discussion, with the aim at 
coming to a concensus.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:48:04 -0700 (PDT)

I would suggest that this topic is something the RFC Series Editor 
(transitional or otherwise) would/should/could consider.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> usual for anything in front of the full IETF, a free-for-all exchange meets
> with various objections and there is no follow-through to try to resolve
> things.  Any momentum that might have built then dissipates.
> 
> appointed to serve something similar to the role of working group chair, to
> try to resolve differences and assess consensus.
> 
> d/
> -- 
> 
>   Dave Crocker
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:02:13 -0400

Since there is nobody suggesting a modification of the document format
from 7 bit plaintext to UTF8 and since further it is clear that this
would satisfy neither camp, I fail to see the relevance for including
it.

Expressing surprise that such an option has not been considered is,
well 'interesting'.

-- 
-- 
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:42:53 -0400

Well, I will just point out that the whole discussion was kicked off
by a gratuitous defense of the existing format.

As for the rejection of Paul's proposal, it is entirely logical to
reject a change that fails to go far enough. And your ability to block
change in the past is hardly a justification for blocking any changes
in the future. If you decide to put it in those terms then the format
discussion becomes a debate on the question of whether the IETF is
capable of any sort of reform, any sort of growth. If the answer is
that it is not then it is a rather sad indictment of the institution.

As for 'tendentious', there is nothing particularly 'plain' about
being required to have an exact number of lines per page, a number of
lines chosen for compatibility with 1960s era dot matrix printers.
Teletype format seemed to be considerably less confrontational than
the term I have been using in conversation for many years now.

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:57:50 +0100

I developed tools to convert RFC from/to mediawiki pages. As long as RFC
3935 obliges to use English ASCII, the simplest English ASCII format is the
best as it permits easy format conversion. The only real problem I meet is
the impossibility to use circles in figures.
jfc

2010/3/16 Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>

>> Brian E Carpenter <brian dot e dot carrpenter at gmail dot com> wrote:
>>
> draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs? As far as I recall, there was lots of support for
> it.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:19:36 -0400

> draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs? As far as I recall, there was lots of support for

Some people are more equal than others.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:08:58 -0400

On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:

> I agree, there did seem to be lots of support for it, including my  
> own. But I don't think anyone really wanted to stand up and act as  
> the "WG Chair" and declare concensus. After all, this is a basic  
> infrastructure item that spans the entire IETF+IRTF+IAB space. Who  
> is in charge of managing that entire community?
>

I believe that the IETF Chair calls consensus on general IETF matters,  
when necessary.

Regards
Marshall

> It seems like there should be a serious presentation of the topic at  
> one of the upcoming plenaries, with subsequent discussion, with the  
> aim at coming to a concensus.
>
> 	Tony Hansen
> 	[email-masked]
>

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:21:16 +0100

Circles are not impossible, just a pain:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5491#section-5.2.7>

Likewise for normal distributions:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-04>

On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:57 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:

> I developed tools to convert RFC from/to mediawiki pages. As long as  
> RFC 3935 obliges to use English ASCII, the simplest English ASCII  
> format is the best as it permits easy format conversion. The only  
> real problem I meet is the impossibility to use circles in figures.
> jfc
>
> Speaking of which: did we ever *measure* the acceptance of draft- 
> hoffman-utf8-rfcs? As far as I recall, there was lots of support for  
> it.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:32:06 -0700

>is in charge of managing that entire community?

It falls under the IAB.  If the RFC Style Guide is a policy matter, 
the IAB approves of the change.  If it is within the responsibilities 
of the RFC Series Editor (Transitional), he could work on this matter 
as it is the main preoccupation of the IETF Community this month.

I have some unfounded theories about how this may be played.  If the 
populace brings this up to the IESG, the latter will redirect the 
request to the IAB.  The IAB will set up a committee to work with the 
RFC Series Editor on the matter.  Decision by committee has its 
advantages as nobody gets to take the fall when things go wrong.  It 
also offers some protection for the RFC Series Editor.   That is a 
necessary as the latter is part of a rare species.

One might want to consider whether the question of document format is 
so critical that it has to be addressed immediately.  The resolution 
will likely take over a year but let's not get into such details.

To sum up, this is a debate where each "camp tries to convert the 
other.  Like all the religious wars of the past, logic is not the 
decisive tool".

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:06:41 -0700

> draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs? As far as I recall, there was lots of support 
The draft expired at rev 5, but can be found at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs

-Doug