[rfc-i] Two drafts showing the advantage of the new format

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Wed Aug 16 18:23:31 PDT 2017

Sure. I was just objecting to the "there's an RFC, shut up and change your stuff" message.  The reason not to use colour is because of printing and colour blind people, not because The RFC Sez. 


Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On Aug 16, 2017, at 21:20, Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com> wrote:
>> On 8/16/17 8:13 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Note that at least one IAB member at the time thought the plan was to modify the rfcs in question in light of experience.  I believe said IAB member made this point at a plenary.
> Sure -- my understanding of the plan is to have revised versions of all of the documents out now that we've had time to poke at their practical impact.  However, unless you've found a way to let my laser printer produce colors, and additionally come up with a miracle cure for the red-green colorblindness that impacts a non-trivial percentage of the general population, it's going to be hard arguing that there's experiential reasons to revisit this *specific* requirement.
> /a

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list