Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Fri May 6 11:44:48 2011, John Leslie wrote:
If we want to change this, we need to start putting
warning-labels in the _individual_ RFCs that don't meet
a "ready for widespread deployment" criterion.
I do not believe this will work, actually.
It is at least a step which _might_ work...
In general, I think boilerplate warning messages get ignored -
people quickly learn to expect and ignore them as routine -
It's not fair to compare this to government-warnings on
cigarette packs.
However, I agree that if warning-labels look like boilerplate,
folks will ignore them.
and I don't think we're likely to be able to construct unique
and varying warning messages for every RFC we publish.
I offer as evidence the quite-limited warning-labels that the
IESG may put on RFCs that are not IETF series RFCs. These happen
routinely and seem to be accomplishing their intent.
And, if I may speculate, we might consider warning-labels
that refer readers to status pages maintained by area teams to
show progress on issues not (yet) resolved at the time of
publication.
There _are_ things worthy of trying here.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf