[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
bob.hinden at nokia.com
Tue Dec 9 10:17:49 PST 2008
> 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?
That is my thought as well.
The document should say what it is, it does not have to say what it
isn't. For example, a standard approved by the IESG should be clearly
labeled as an "IETF STANDARD". It does not have to say this is not
the output of the IRTF, IAB, or independent submission. Likewise, an
RFC approved by the the IAB does not have to say it isn't an IETF
Stardard, or from the IRTF, etc.
When we write documents describing, for example, a file transfer
protocol, we don't go to great lengths to say all the things it
doesn't to. I don't see why the boiler plate needs to be any different.
The problem of people outside of the IETF being confused by thinking
that all RFCs are standards is not going to be fixed by anything we
can write in an RFC.
More information about the rfc-interest