[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
rsayre at mozilla.com
Mon Dec 15 03:27:59 PST 2008
On 12/14/08 1:24 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I agree with the proposed middle ground text (though I would prefer
> dropping the word stream).
It's not obvious to me what "proposed middle ground text" is being
agreed with, since the previous few messages have lots of interspersed
Anyway, here are some comments on
> As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been
> increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to
> make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it
> describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as
> part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs
> that may have had a very different review and approval process.
> Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving
> text of "Notes" included in the published RFC.
This paragraph uses the passive voice excessively. Where did the
"increasing concern" come from? Why is the existing text insufficient,
and who deemed it so? Have the changes to "Notes" (changes by whom?)
been aimed at different problems?
> 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."
This text is confusing to me. Don't all products of the IETF need to be
approved by the IESG?
> 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
> therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see
> section Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
The given reason for the existence of the third boilerplate paragraph is
"describing the type of review and exposure the document has received."
I think the text reading "It is therefore not a candidate for any level
of Internet Standard; see section Section 2 of RFCXXXX" is misplaced,
since it does not describe review and exposure. It is also unevenly
applied, since a similar statement could be made regarding IESG-approved
Informational and Experimental documents (e.g. RFC 4627). What problem
does this text solve?
The first paragraph reads
This memo is not an Internet Standards Track specification;
The second paragraph reads
Informational: "This memo provides information for the Internet
community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. "
Also, the text "This document is a contribution to the RFC Series" is
obvious and unnecessary. The text "independently of any other RFC
stream" is incorrect, since it's not permitted to compete with the IETF
in practice, and the series is edited for consistency.
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 also clear that the first and second paragraphs of the boilerplate
are very, very repetitive. Inconsistent usage of "memo" and "document"
masks the repetitiveness somewhat.
More information about the rfc-interest