"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Fri Aug 3 02:30:51 PDT 2012
Hello Dave, others,
On 2012/08/02 3:25, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 11:13 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> On 8/1/12 6:05 AM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>> I don't understand what you mean about alignment of brand, or the
>> Alignment: Our most important outputs should look like our web brand.
>> Special-casing: the independent series is not entitled to participate in
>> that brand, and they might not want to anyway.
> Other than standards-track labeling, I do not know what "ietf-specific"
> branding is present within the rfc-specific branding...
> The original point was the the top portion of an RFC presents a visual
> that constitutes a 'brand' appearance for the RFC series. (I've since
> been told that trademark folk refer to this as "trade dress".)
> Anyhow, I'm not seeing how any of this relates to the IETF's web brand.
As to the 'web' part, there shouldn't be a 'web' brand and a 'paper'
brand and so on. And of course very often, RFCs get read over the Web
(except for those people who download the whole series whole-sale, which
may be the majority on this list (but would not include me) but not the
majority of the general public).
As to the 'IETF' part, I think there are two broadly different views of
the relationship between the IETF and the RFC Editor. I'd call the first
the "insider view". That view sees the IETF and the RFC Editor as two
essentially totally separate entities. The second view I'd call the
"outsider view". That view thinks IETF when they hear RFC, and RFC when
they hear IETF.
You seem to argue from the viewpoint of the "insider view". Joe and I
seem to argue from the viewpoint of the "outsider view". So maybe we
have to change levels and talk about these two views before we can talk
again about branding.
More information about the rfc-interest