hallam at gmail.com
Mon Aug 6 09:46:25 PDT 2012
The idea was promotion of specifications within the series. This was
only partially discussed during the two track discussion, not least
because the same forces of inertia that were causing the wheels to
bind here were largely at work in that discussion.
Yes, color is tricky not just because of the colorblind thing, some of
us have b&W printers still hence that gets us into icons...
It later occurred to me that the best icon for 'informational' would
be an exclamation point - a nice big chunky one. Proposed could be a
similar question mark and standard have the IETF logo (or ITU-T if the
away team loses in Dubai).
IAB, ISOC and co can then make up their own.
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
<rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> On 8/4/12 7:52 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> How about a different color for Proposed and Standard?
> I very much hesitate to rely on color for anything official. Color gets
> complicated when talking about accessibility, and a different kind of
> complicated when talking about how this might apply to different streams
> as well as the different tracks within the IETF. Who gets what color,
> how to do we educate the readers as to what the colors mean, and so on.
> It sounds like we are just moving the problem around.
>> That might encourage more people to work on promotion...
> I admit, I didn't track that thought - how would this encourage people
> to work on promotion? Promotion of what? The Series? The differences
> within the Series? Something else?
>> 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.
> I think (but am not sure) that some of this has been hashed out in the
> comparatively recent past by the IETF, probably when we went from Draft,
> Proposed, and Standard to just Proposed and Standard. I don't have the
> details on that discussion. Does anyone else have more information on
> what came up with the concept of branding and colors in the past?
>> 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
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest