[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Dec 9 11:17:41 PST 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I agree with Bob on this.
Stating a negative is never useful :-)
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.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rfc-interest