On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 01:58:53AM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: > I have no problem at all with the “trying” part; we certainly should > do this, and I’m trying to do my part (e.g., with CDDL; I’ve also been > arguing for including source forms of images in RFCs). > > I do have a problem with “make sure”, which is a nice wording for what > is better known as “prohibition politics".
[It's a few years too late for that. But hear hear!] I suspect that it should almost always -even in the YANG case- be possible for the sight-impaired to implement based on normative _text_ in RFCs. It is merely a small matter of wordsmithing[0]. But yes, it's important to remember that IETF participants are volunteers. Often they are paid by employers for their IETF work, but often their IETF participation is not expected to be a full-time because they are often also implementors and we can't implement if we spend all our time specifying. Nor does the IETF (or the LLC, or ISOC, or the RPC, or...) have technical writing staff that can parachute in to help with wordsmithing. Perhaps this last can be changed in time. [0] SMOW, a companion to SMOP. _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
