[rfc-i] Text no longer definitive (was Re: Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2)

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Feb 18 13:56:09 PST 2014


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/02/2014 09:15, Nico Williams wrote:
>> If you're sight-impaired you might not have an easy time reading
>> bits-on-the-wire artwork.  RFC793 shows how to get this right.  I
>> don't think it's a pain.
>
> That's a matter of opinion, but I suspect that a survey of existing

No doubt.  And clearly a rule regarding accessibility could be
implemented in such a way as to make things worse rather than better,
but that's not what I'm after.  I'm not after a rule so much as after
guidelines -- the sort of thing that WG chairs, IESG members, WGLC and
IETF LC reviewers, and the RFC-Editor might ask about.  If in some
case it's ETOOHARD, so be it (and be it noted in the RFC itself).

> RFCs would find many that rely on the bit layout diagrams and do
> not have the details spelled out as in RFC793. If we're aiming at
> the RFC793 level of detail, I think that's a new guideline for the
> whole community.

New?  I'm not sure that such a guideline is written anywhere, but
plenty of RFCs' authors/editors seem to have followed it.  It's hardly
new, and many I-D authors work at companies that have to adhere to
actual a11y legal regulations -- it can hardly be new to too many
here.  It'd only be a guideline, to be discarded or kept on a
case-by-case basis, as I've said several times.  How can that be
controversial?  Do you think that there will be a torrent of "oh, but
you should make this more accessible" comments?  And if so, so what,
who says we're here to make it trivial to publish just any rubbish?
We have review for a reason, and such a guideline will not add a
severe new burden.  If the authors think it's too hard let them write
that into their document and defend the position.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list