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

Bob Hinden bob.hinden at nokia.com
Fri Dec 12 14:40:42 PST 2008


Olaf,

As I said in my comments to the list, I don't think the "what this is  
not text should be there".

My proposed changes based on this are below.

Bob


> 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."

I would add something like:

      If this is an approved IETF standards track document, an  
additional
      sentence should be added:  "This document is an IETF Standard."

The one that is an IETF standard should say so very clearly, as  
opposed to the ones that are not having to include the negative.


>  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."

s/ 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."

s/ 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."

s/  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."

Remove the above paragraph.  I don't think it is necessary.




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list