[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