Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-where-does-that-come-from-00.txt

Keith Moore <> Sat, 13 March 2021 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A673E3A103F for <>; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 06:34:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qD3gvCEhObE7 for <>; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 06:34:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69D1B3A103A for <>; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 06:34:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FEC5C007C for <>; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:34:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:34:00 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=eFg0GoiJi2B2IHo9vuNOcQHdaIihAwqw/pse1/gGj KM=; b=fKqCo9YrPll1Q/xqFhunDBsFef9tSfQXCwpR60AWizEsqkhWY8w7oJxrz D5Y9xYUHAUEecfIOmR5HwyhOKaWJDG0BccCmL53ra17T3lEIsZXuncNPnqvJQrzp DJvuMJUxE1WoGQSz2oo7aupWG6f5q0MFFANUyG71E0ZmxVt1v2hzmW5OqsvXthGC RloxjvO6h06/oOIuXqUO34eRsbDaBlB5R5rvqqNFj9pzbKnXFS916PnZUMfLy0xM 2ZQk0OegFbDqrkm5YUJmYBJXRL2+fpVIj3X8d/RqJTyaAouZSRWhDgf99VHBHJem W/gKNNKdUxVDPG15G8J4d1tZaaEug==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:V81MYF1qxxD9EkweJEnUsA4V3w8s5Ru_BhYghyd6DBUwxFjhk9QX8A> <xme:V81MYMHzKUq3G4tWnHmvzkljyUNFYXUAWv33MWQfFi7FtLUjYpfE3jp27p63zmLca qUUhZzXyUvZNA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledruddvgedgieefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehhfeutdehfe fgfefghfekhefguefgieduueegjeekfeelleeuieffteefueduueenucfkphepjeefrddu udefrdduieelrdeiudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:V81MYF6HKFCg3oqtMoCr_w-vtQn2EYCCZaqnfZ9vhgUU8mXpYavEiw> <xmx:V81MYC2Dax64RedUMnnuFOtzll1H0unMZ1gdtoSD00aF9s0kL_LcGQ> <xmx:V81MYIEMYbsCirmtcHysA75zpPbE68vh22qTlIM5ojJsThM3pA_SSA> <xmx:V81MYMETumze4m25UUx0el5fFMskZfWPfSJymLm9HtK5UQFkFXRyjQ>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5EE61108005F for <>; Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:33:59 -0500 (EST)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:33:58 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: draft-nottingham-where-does-that-come-from-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 14:34:03 -0000

On 3/13/21 3:17 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:

> This having been said, I agree with Mark that this is a problem, that branding can help, and that the matter should get addressed.

Agree with this much.   Especially now that HTML and PDF are widely used 
for RFCs, it seems reasonable to include logos in the HTMLized and PDF 
versions of newly produced RFCs, and perhaps also HTMLized and PDF 
versions of older RFCs.

But these seem a bit out of scope for IETF to specify in detail, so 
perhaps should be limited to brief recommendations to the RFC Editor.

I don't think Internet-Drafts should be stamped by IETF at all, but 
maybe authors should be able to specify one or more small logos of the 
organizations that they represent, if they wish.   If this is done I 
recommend that they be on a (single) cover/title page that doesn't 
change the format of the remainder of the draft.