Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Mon Aug 6 10:07:43 PDT 2012
On 8/6/12 10:52 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>Just to be clear, there are many ways to cause RFCs to not "look exactly
>the same" other than using color or shading. In specific, Joe has shown
>that individual readers should be able to supply their own CSS for
>HTML-formatted RFCs, so specifying a color or shading for an RFC would be
I also proposed that if you were using a local CSS override of any kind
that your document was no longer canonical.
>A possible standards-level branding might be a header box at the top of
>the RFC that briefly explains the standards level.
Many things are possible with CSS.
>Having said that, the idea of branding by standards level might be
>useless and/or harmful. In the IETF stream, "experimental" and "standards
>track" sometimes overlap in reality, regardless of what RFC 2026 says
>should happen. Instead, branding by stream seems more important, so the
>reader can quickly determine which documents have had some sort of IETF
>consensus versus those that are research from the IRTF, statements from
>the IAB, and "other" from the ISE. If such branding happens, and the IESG
>wants sub-branding within their series, that should be considered.
We could potentially leave that up to each "customer" to decide, with some
coördination and guidance from the RFC Editor to ensure that the different
brands share some unifying concepts.
More information about the rfc-interest