[rfc-i] Text no longer definitive (was Re: Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2)
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Feb 18 14:35:57 PST 2014
On 19/02/2014 10:56, Nico Williams wrote:
> 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,
I'm pretty sure it's written nowhere.
> 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
Respecting accessibility guidelines is a Good Thing. But I dispute
that this particular point is well known in the IETF as a whole,
even if it's understood by some people.
> 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.
However, I just checked the Gen-ART review guidelines
(http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki) and there's
nothing about it. Reviewing for accessibility would be a
natural fit with Gen-ART, but we can't do that unless there
are some guidelines available on a better basis than folk
knowledge. With non-ASCII on the horizon, this is definitely
> If the authors think it's too hard let them write
> that into their document and defend the position.
Sure, if there are guidelines for them to follow.
More information about the rfc-interest