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

[Joe Touch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1 on this suggested text.

Joe

Bob Hinden wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAklDLHYACgkQE5f5cImnZrtuJQCfZ+cvI8GWEEhVyYJliRUZCAuu
5aIAn2+QMhSa8BkVLKTzW30fouAWcwkc
=YpAN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----