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

[Joe Touch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I agree with Bob on this.

Stating a negative is never useful :-)

Joe

Bob Hinden wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Bob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkk+xFUACgkQE5f5cImnZrukZgCgxRcRtVYSWk5n+iXxWiONc8V7
vAwAn35XZjAKk517o2P+1JAGKhJ2vrj1
=uikC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----