[rfc-i] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-rfc-author-guide-00.txt

Paul Hoffman / VPNC paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Sep 3 13:58:21 PDT 2004


At 11:16 PM +0300 9/3/04, Pekka Savola wrote:
>Sect 4.6 seems insufficient as it could be read to discuss only the
>case of specifying new IANA codepoints from existing namespaces, not
>defining new namespaces with appropriate guidelines for assignments.
>
>The latter seems important as many documents have forgotten to specify
>what are the new namespaces created by the specification, and how the
>allocations are to be handled in the future.

OK, good point. I'll add more on that.

>  > >  - section 2.11, the paragraph about not being updated in the
>>  >documents themselves, and reference to the RFC index
>>
>>  Why is that relevant to someone who is writing an RFC?
>
>OK, I can see why it need not go here.  I think this would have been
>useful because it underlines the fact that the RFCs are not changed
>after publication; the language in section 4.4, if not read carefully,
>could be interpreted so that "updates" could be used to change the
>text in the previous RFC (the RFC itself).

I guess I'm assuming that someone who has gotten this far knows that 
they cannot submit an Internet Draft that will change an existing 
RFC. Regardless of what they think, it won't happen. :-)

>  > >  - section 2.14
>>
>>  Fully disagree here. The RFC Editor does not consistently enforce
>>  this rule (nor should they, in my opinion). RFC 2119 stands on its
>>  own without the need to repeat parts and to restate other parts.
>
>Well, this seems to be a pretty hard IESG rule at least, i.e., if you
>use uppercase words SHOULD, MUST, etc., you should either specify what
>you mean by them or refer to RFC 2119.  Seems like a good idea to me.

Seems like a good idea to me, too, but I don't want to list it unless 
the RFC Editor plans to enforce it. My document is *not* meant to add 
any new work on them.

>Sorry if I said this in a confusing way -- an email address needs to
>be present (except for those people who've deceased during the
>process);  was arguing againt requiring the other kind of contact
>info, like telephone or fax numbers, snailmail addresses, etc. (as
>these aren't required today).

I'll reword the text to make it more clear that only one type of 
contact info is needed.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list