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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Dec 12 11:31:06 PST 2008


I can live with the 'middle ground' strawman.

As I said quite a while ago, I don't see any reason to use the
word 'stream' in the boilerplate, since the external reader will
find it irrelevant. "It is not a product of the IETF" is enough.

   Brian

On 2008-12-13 00:09, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> 
> 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 ---
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list