[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 15:48:00 PST 2014

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/02/2014 11:49, Nico Williams wrote:
>> Who cares if some I-D author doesn't know this guideline?  Isn't this
>> one of the reasons we have a publication process?
> We have a review process that is far from watertight due to
> the size and complexity of the IETF (not to mention the
> other streams). So it matters that we don't have published
> accessibility guidelines for authors, WG members, WG chairs,
> ADs, and review teams to use.

So we're in violent agreement.  RFC a11y should be a guideline, and it
should be published with RFC-Editor buy-in.  WG chairs and IESG
members should find out about via training.  Once that's done we can
let the process take care of it: authors will find out whenever they
find out.  If neither authors, editors, nor reviewers turn out to care
and the guideline collects dust, that's fine (but I doubt it will turn
out that way).

> It definitely matters that authors are made aware of
> the guidelines. The effort of fixing a document is far
> greater and involves more people when a defect is found
> late in the process.

As long as the RFC-Editor is aware foremost, and then IESG members and
WG chairs (and this is why we have training, no?) then that's good
enough.  We can't expect *authors* to know everything.

Your arguments (such as they are) come across as circular, that
because X don't know about a guideline Y that we'd like to have, we
can't have Y as a guideline.  That's just silly.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list