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

Olaf Kolkman Olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Fri Dec 12 03:09:39 PST 2008


I have see comments going both ways, folk that introduced the question  
are strongly for adding language that the non-ietf-streams are non- 
ietf-streams, folk that replied later are all saying, don't say non- 
ietf-stream, as that makes as much sense as saying non-ieee-document.

The way that I interpret the discussion is that in some cases saying  
'what is not' can clarify matters. All depends on the situation and  
context. IMHO the current discussion is about whether the  
clarification adds value.

I've had positive nor negative comments on the straw man which tried  
to find some middle ground.

Please let me know if this does _not_ work and provide alternatives.

This issue needs closure.

--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 not 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/20081212/84f271d0/PGP.bin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list