[rfc-i] Some proposed updates

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 05 March 2020 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1303E3A07F4 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:28:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gBGaY_WCl8Jr for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:28:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B37A03A07BC for <rfc-interest-archive-SieQuei0be@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:28:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7EBF406D3; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:27:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B27F406D3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:27:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MXNQVkB58SXX for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:27:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-f48.google.com (mail-ot1-f48.google.com []) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D32F406C3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:27:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-f48.google.com with SMTP id f21so6466010otp.12 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:28:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=O0xTE1sq0Ung7kA3YfzhGfUKWiDEMqt09UTPSfP+pKQ=; b=jwrxTWXpUYM7cqTk9XUjUG9gndcdt8nHt4xlGFr6oKxbzslj8cffKR8b2V7xJSn3ha YLMzyscHE7kOzh9ZcMgUULPMLXEFAG1s5/jgm/JoytTlrjUPlC4ZMx10TUW7FGKcUtRu s7RYB5Bcu6Kgkp4118fNTsFo4KYkzRogl8MW/jHsaBAFbEpl68a/xYDGWiiB9GJGDyHy EVadCO+YBVgNJrg5uUoLs8TedAzYYSpNVMHHJGDBkA4h8GViGnd+rTjHEFL8OsstQCEq o1aR70DJLPRdTBnRzst7ft37KaAOrNQmG1BiXvlxPim9s5vPEOHpmLfukx6HO1m4/fei ADDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3Vg1u1LO5MNWr9lQSUfG+IhgRhmw4CAGrM9pKbtFt3o2s+EE6o ZALHjzCVtqmTvtt+bGJRBUXHMkrdqsA9yFSOFmW5c9b/K9M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vupdPHyd19aMg0K7re/c4IoSzS+oD1v0h4wOGcQ?= =?utf-8?q?wGMl5EQnx1l1rMh+gWhl4zMp4wx5rVMNDd+Jeeva86oxiqM=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6e90:: with SMTP id a16mr7312565otr.64.1583429298194; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 09:28:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 12:28:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhfFteSouiGbME9dLR0m+x7FThGvWyxDXLQ_deiS6uueg@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [rfc-i] Some proposed updates
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5688960463405342101=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

I am currently working on using XML2RFCv3 to write a set of drafts using
some fairly involved cryptography math. The HTML presentation vastly
improves readability but this naturally leads to discovery of 'issues'. I
know we don't have an ad with plenary authority at the moment but I think
it is useful to keep track for when we do.

1) Input of math

Neither Markdown nor Word are remotely comfortable for
inputting mathematical formulas. Consider the following:

f(x) = x^2 + 4

To present that properly we should render the f and x in italics and the
rest in normal font. So if like me you have multiple equations with
convoluted subscripts, etc., it is a pain in the pattotie. So next time I
get round to working on my tool, I am planning to drop in support for LaTeX
style equations. Writing $f(x) = x^2 + 4$ should cause the text inside the
$$ braces to be rendered as math.

This does not affect the spec of course, I am raising it here so that
Carsten, myself and anyone else making tools can possibly work out a common

2) Presentation of proofs.

I frequently write out proofs:

errors = (code).(more code)
   = more.code.code
   = more.code^2

i.e. e = mc^2

Right now, the only ways to do this is with tables or(ab)using <dl> lists

<dt>errors</dt><dd>= (code).(more code)</dd>
    <dd> = more.code.code </dd>
    <dd> = more.code <sup>2</sup></dd>

I think we should have proper markup for this:

<lhs>errors</ lhs >=<rhs>(code).(more code)</rhs>
    =<rhs>more.code.code </rhs>
< proof >

In addition to specifying the left and right hand sides, I would like to be
able to specify the side conditions and proof rules applied.

3) Math characters.

I still haven't seen a list of which characters are supported/unsupported.
It seems that the card suit characters are supported but not commonly used
math symbols like circle-plus, circle-cross, arrows, thus, etc.

The number of special characters used in Z and VDM are not actually very
large but they are really important. We certainly don't need every UNICODE
math symbol but we do need more than we have at the moment to express
formal methods notations.


4) SVG-Tiny is obsolete and will be deprecated shortly.

We should drop SVG-Tiny and use SVG as the basis for diagrams. We can still
apply the same restrictions on the use of color but SVG is the standard,
SVG-Tiny is about to be deprecated. There is only one major vendor
supporting it and only in one product.

SVG-Tiny does not support the features used to create arrows on lines by
almost every drawing tool in use. It is not reasonable to demand that
people make use of an arbitrary subset of a standard that is obsolete.
There are no tools that support SVG-Tiny that do not support full SVG.

I have looked on the list discussions and absolutely nobody raised the
severely restricted support in SVG-Tiny when diagrams were discussed. So I
fail to see any group decision or consensus on this point.

5) There should be more structure for citations to scholarly journals.

The current <reference> structure was written for the ASCII text style.
Slapping a journal article reference in <annotation> worked. Now that we
have italics in the output, that is insufficient to produce the generally
accepted presentation forms.
rfc-interest mailing list