Re: [rfc-i] [Rswg] draft-mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2023-10-27, at 17:39, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> +1
> This subject needs the broader discussion that comes from a WG.

If we were on the cusp of adopting this method for our future RFCs, I’d agree.  But really, this is research (and rather interesting research, if I may say so).

> Of special note, the principles in section 4 need debate.

Absolutely.  But not in an engineering sense (like a WG would).

> Personally I find the "structured English" problematic. That is part of the needed discussion.

Exactly.

(I myself am mostly interested in a formal definition of the information that is being extracted by the tool behind this. 
I’d probably enter that information in a formal language and have the English generated for people who like it that way — I neither care to write nor to read lengthy English text.
I almost wrote an English language generator for RFC 7071, which has a different formalism written up in English [1] (which now has been replaced in newer specifications by CDDL [2]).)

Grüße, Carsten

[1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7071#section-6.2.2
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8610.html#appendix-H