Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf