[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Mon Dec 8 03:27:01 PST 2008
[Forwarded with permission]
As for the question below, it was neither oversight nor conscious
decision, it takes consensus on the list to reach the latter.
I'd like to draw conclusion in about a week from now, silence will be
interpreted as consent for the proposed edit.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>
> Date: December 4, 2008 7:11:57 PM GMT+01:00
> To: IAB <iab at iab.org>
> Cc: IESG <iesg at ietf.org>
> Subject: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
> Dear IAB,
> The IESG reviewed RFC 3932bis document in our telechat today. Some
> of the discussion made us look again at headers-and-boilerplates in
> My assumption had been that for non-IETF documents, the boilerplate
> text would be saying that the document is (a) not a candidate for an
> Internet standard and (b) that the document is not a product of the
> IETF. We used the IRTF template as an example in our discussion. But
> then later I was surprised to find out that for the independent
> stream, it only says (a), not (b). We were wondering if this is an
> oversight or a conscious decision.
> I would like to see both parts there, actually. This was the opinion
> from everyone on the call as well*.
> If you agree, is there time to change the boilerplates document? I
> am referring to the last paragraph in Section 3.2. One possible way
> to change it would be
> It is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard
> It is therefore not a product of the IETF and not a candidate for
> any level of Internet Standard
> *) There were two ADs who had other comments on the 3932bis &
> boilerplate changes. They may be contacting the IAB as well,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20081208/ec6167b1/PGP.bin
More information about the rfc-interest