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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Mon Dec 15 20:20:14 PST 2008


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


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.

I don't like this version; we should make simple statements:

	This document is a product of the IETF.

	This document is a product of the IAB.

	This document is a product of the IRTF.

	This document is an independent submission.

There is no reason to make any statement about the standards level of
the document in this location; the document header already describes
that (Standard, Draft Standard, Experimental, Informational).

If you want to explain any of what this means, then, IMO, add the
following sentence to any of the above:

	For further information on the (IETF/IAB/IRTF/
	independent submissions), please see (insert
`	RFC for the TAO here).

I see no reason for making any other statements in this location.

Joe

> -- 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAklHLH4ACgkQE5f5cImnZrvtiQCfckyPU7gtS4tN6UsXmBRyC0HK
GNsAoMTtVBIiEuTMi6sxhbhKPFPiZlGZ
=018q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list