hallam at gmail.com
Sat Aug 4 07:52:56 PDT 2012
How about a different color for Proposed and Standard?
That might encourage more people to work on promotion...
Also Informational and experimental could be visually distinct.
I am thinking they should all have icons in the masthead. Experimental
would have a test tube, retort, flasky chemistry set up. Only proposed
and standard would have the IETF logo (proposed would have a question
Informational would be tricky.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
<jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/12 2:30 AM, ""Martin J. Dürst"" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>>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.
> I largely agree with what Martin is saying, but I'd tweak it a little bit.
> Regardless of the format decided upon, we might decide to have a somewhat
> different brand for consensus-based output of the IETF, IRTF, ISE, IAB,
> Once you can have a brand that goes beyond the capabilities of the
> lineprinter format, we might decide that the differences in brand are
> important. Alternately, we might decide that the "RFC" brand is more
> important than the brand of the organization or individual that produced
> the work. I'm not convinced one way or the other yet, but it seems like
> we should make an explicit decision.
> For example, the fact that the IRC cluster of RFCs (2810-2813) is
> informational and not really the output of a consensus-based approach by
> the IETF has been surprising to many people that I've talked to over the
> years. "It's got an RFC number, so it must be good"
> Note: I'm not saying that IRC is bad here, or that the process was flawed,
> or anything like that. The question is, to a casual observer, should
> those RFCs look exactly the same (aside from the word "INFORMATIONAL" in
> the title) as a fully consensus-based document?
> Joe Hildebrand
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest