[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Tue Dec 9 02:40:38 PST 2008


Brian:
> But seriously, if a document says "This is the product of X" does
> it really also need to say "This is not the product of Y", for
> *any* values of X and Y?


When one X and Y take the value of "<BLAFOO> stream" then that  
statement is correct.

The point here is that if X=IETF then there is some ambiguity of what  
IETF actually means:
The IETF Universe of organizations (IESG, WGs, IAB, IRTF, IAOC, Trust)  
or the IETF Standards Process (as governed by 2026). I'd prefer to try  
and not rathole on that.

As far as I am concerned it is clear that Standards Track Documents  
can only be published through the IETF stream and IMHO that should be  
stressed.


Lars:
> Many folks think that all RFCs are IETF standards or at least IETF  
> products, and reminding them that this is not so in the documents  
> for which this is not so makes sense to me.


IMHO, and I may sound a bit defensive now, I think that it is clear  
that a document is not a standard.

The first sentence of the "Status of this memo section" points this  
out based on the category of the document it reads:

       This memo is an Internet Standards Track document.

       This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice

       This memo is not an Internet Standards Track specification; <it  
is
       published for other purposes>.


If that first sentence is not clear enough then the paragraph  
following stresses it (e.g. for informational purposes):

      "This memo provides information for the Internet community.   
This memo does
       not specify an Internet standard of any kind. "


The current discussion is about the 3rd paragraph where the review is  
clarified. Below is a straw-man. Where there is one standard sentence  
for each non IETF stream and there is one paragraph of clarification  
(note that the reference Section 2 of RFCXXXX points to this text and  
hence that clarification, the reference allows us to move the detailed  
explanation from the boilerplate to the RFC).


--Olaf


-- start---

    The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a
    paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document  
has
    received.  This is defined on a per-stream basis.  From now on,  
these
    paragraphs will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions.

    The following texts may be updated if the stream definitions are
    updated, but initial paragraphs for the existing streams are:

    IETF Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet  
Engineering
       Task Force (IETF). "

       If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an
       additional sentence should be added: "This document represents a
       consensus of the IETF community.  It has received public review
       and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering
       Steering Group."

    IAB Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet  
Architecture
       Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed
       valuable to provide for permanent record.  This document has been
       approved for publication by the IAB. It is not a product of the  
IETF stream
       and is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet  
Standard;
       see section Section 2 of RFCXXXX."


    IRTF Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet Research
       Task Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
       related research and development activities.  These results might
       not be suitable for deployment.  This document has been approved
       for publication by the IRSG.  It is not a product of the IETF  
stream
       and is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet  
Standard;
       see section Section 2 of RFCXXXX."

       In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the
       IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the
       <insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
       (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual
       opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
       Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)".

    Independent Stream:  "This document is a contribution to the RFC
       Series, independently of any other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor  
has
       chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no
       statement about its value for implementation or deployment.  It
       is not a product of the IETF stream and is therefore not a  
candidate
       for any level of Internet Standard; see section Section 2 of  
RFCXXXX."


    Note that standards track documents can only be published through  
the IETF stream.
    Therefore any non-IETF stream contains the following  
clarification: It is not a product
    of the IETF stream and is therefore not a candidate for any level of
    Internet Standard". That sentence also implies that the document  
has been
    approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering  
Group after an IETF consensus
    process."


---- end ---

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20081209/dcf78c9d/PGP.bin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list