Re: [rfc-i] getting SVG of RFC diagrams

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 24 November 2023 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8021C151986 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:44:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EmCW6MP9cB7t for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:44:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6B47C15153E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:44:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eduroam-0647.wlan.uni-bremen.de (eduroam-0647.wlan.uni-bremen.de [134.102.18.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ScHn10ysfzDCcd; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 15:44:21 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB375791C859512AB08EA20D11B9B8A@MN2PR11MB3757.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 15:44:20 +0100
Cc: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 722529860.499892-d5f0a3b55e2681536c07b6db91d6df3d
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <61DE9E4A-5242-42A9-B88D-30BEBF16AB0E@tzi.org>
References: <310371.1700735021@dyas> <7C81D316-7D04-4941-BEE5-6AE8C96F0DE1@tzi.org> <D1F8F86E-80D7-4FC7-B7B5-32648ACB5D65@tzi.org> <MN2PR11MB3757AF8CCDF388BA5CECFE1AB9B8A@MN2PR11MB3757.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <153bde12-5773-42ce-bfdf-392e4492c06b@gmx.de> <MN2PR11MB375791C859512AB08EA20D11B9B8A@MN2PR11MB3757.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Paul Duffy (paduffy)" <paduffy@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/Nrm-Wb5F1zUcWom8Ut0PS_iYgbY>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] getting SVG of RFC diagrams
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:44:28 -0000

On 2023-11-24, at 15:39, Paul Duffy (paduffy) <paduffy=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Help me understand.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duffy-csmp/
> 
> Section 3.2.1
> 
> Originally provided as link to external OpenAPI. Super easy for developer to import that link directly into OpenAPI tooling.

Makes sense during development.

> I was told this will not acceptable and must be inlined into the draft.  

Once you enter WGLC and IESG processing, yes.

This leads to the desirability of the URI convention described by me.

Grüße, Carsten