RE: More liberal draft formatting standards required

[Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s at rad.com>]

> To save time, I would suggest adopting the Patent Office rules on  
> Perpetual Motion. People advocating for a change to facilitate figures  
> (or to allow complicated math, such as tensor analysis) should have an  
> existence proof, i.e., a document that requires the change to be  
> published. (A document that left the IETF to be published elsewhere  
> for this reason would also do.)

Marshall

If I remember correctly, draft-ash-alt-formats gave such examples.

G.805 diagrams were needed for some of the PWE and MPLS work,
but could not be put in the desired format. 

I personally started writing up a description of a packet loss concealment technique, 
but had to give up due to the formulas not being transcribable 
(I had no problem submitting a patent application instead).

In TICTOC we are not even considering attempting any work that needs math,
but rather leave it to other SDOs.
It is considered a limitation of the system.

Y(J)S