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

Olaf Kolkman Olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Sat Dec 13 01:39:09 PST 2008


On Dec 12, 2008, at 11:40 PM, 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


Thanks Bob,

I realize I am in the awkward position of holding the pen and  
moderating the discussion I am trying to thread the line of holding  
the pen and having an own (sometimes strong) opinion carefully. Having  
said that, my comments are in-line.

>>
>> -- 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.

The first and the second paragraph of the Status of this Memo section  
already clarify this.

For a Internet Standards track document they read:
---
Status of this Memo

This memo is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the  
Internet community. Please see the "Updates to the RFC" section of  
this document for information on where to find the status of this  
document and the availability of errata for this memo.
----

In all honesty, I feel very reluctant to reopen those paragraphs; this  
document has past all review and approval steps. Also, note that "IETF  
Standard" has no particular meaning, "Internet Standards Track" does.

As Leslie argued before... adding "This is an Internet Standard" to  
the 3rd paragraph is repetitive.



As for your suggestion:
>
> 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."/"/
>

I observe that your suggestion removes the reference to section 2 of  
RFC XXXX (section 2 of what is not the streams, headers, and  
boilerplates) which intends to give readers who want to know the  
details a reference. That is a substantive change: that reference was  
there by careful design removing the reference impacts the usefulness  
of the document.


Have a look at the current version:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-04.txt  
section 3.2

The structure of the 3rd paragraph in the status of this memo is for  
non IETF-stream

[this document is] reviewed by <bla-foo> therefore not a candidate for  
any level of Internet Standard; see section 2 of RFC XXX.

Except for the IRTF stream where it says:
[this document is] reviewed by the IRTF.  It is not a product of the  
IETF and is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet  
Standard;

Jari's original question was, AFAIU: "why this inconsistency"?

My strawman was to use the form:

[this document is] reviewed by <bla-foo>.  It is not a product of the  
IETF stream and is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet  
Standard;

Your suggestion is:
[this document is] reviewed by <bla-foo>. [end]


I think that bringing all the above in line we end up with a statement  
similar to this for all non-IETF streams.

[this document is] reviewed by <bla-foo> therefore not a candidate for  
any level of Internet Standard; see section 2 of RFC XXX.


>
>> 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.
>

This was only a straw-man, to try and clarify why the word "stream" is  
used. I'm not attached to it. Its main need was to suggest a sensible  
default for when new streams are defined in the future.


--Olaf






-------------- 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/20081213/9a895be8/PGP-0001.bin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list