[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfcformatreq-01

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Thu Jan 17 12:11:16 PST 2013

On 1/16/13 10:31 PM, John Levine wrote:
> It does seem closer to something that feels final, doesn't it.
> Minor suggestions:
> 2.1.5: Metadata are also useful for indexing, in particular, for
> preparing whatever is needed to get documents into IEEE Xplore,
> Google Scholar, etc.

A valid argument, but I'd rather not name names and imply that these
requirements are tied to getting the RFC Series recognized in those
indexes.  Still, I did not capture the argument at all about indexing,
so something to that effect should go in the draft.  Is there any
objection to me adding this when we get to the next call for comments?

> 3.2: Do you really mean no color, or is it that graphics must render
> legibly when color isn't available, but can use color when it is?
> Also when you say monochrome, do you mean greyscale?  It's hard to
> think of a printer or display these days that can't do grey.

Here is my concern.  Color and greyscale introduce support challenges
for the editors that I would rather avoid for the foreseeable future.
Editing and AUTH48 take several weeks of editor and author effort, and
that's mostly for text.  With the changes that will likely be proposed
as as result of the requirements captured in this document, we're
already introducing additional effort to review text for correct
rendering and graphic placement across multiple outputs. I think
introducing color and/or greyscale could turn in to the last straw that
puts us back in to a publication delay like the community saw prior to 2006.

We may come back to this in the future, after the dust has settled from
the rest of the changes, but for right now, no.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list