Re: RFC format - time for an update?

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> · Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:57:40 +0900

There's also a list for people interested in the work of the RFC Editor. 
Below are the relevant list headers. There's discussion about this topic 
on that list once in a while, too.

Regards,   Martin.

List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions."
 <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>,
 <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>,
 <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>

On 2012/02/16 16:30, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I'm sure this is probably the wrong list to send this to, so if someone
> could point me to the correct place, it would be appreciated.
>
> I've had the feeling for a while that the restrictions on formatting of
> RFCs and I-Ds (in terms of layout, columns, lines etc) place serious
> limitations on the ability of authors to adequately specify designs.
>
> For instance the inability to show images supporting concepts that can't
> be done in ascii-art and 76 columns.
>
> Specifications after all are intended to convey information to enable
> interoperable implementations. Therefore interop may suffer as a result
> of inability to adequately specify.
>
> Is it therefore time for a change, maybe to drag the format out of the
> 70's (or whenever it was solidified)?
>
> Most other standards bodies seem to have adopted a rich text format.
>
> Regards
>
> Adrien
>