[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
rsayre at mozilla.com
Thu Dec 18 13:23:10 PST 2008
On 12/18/08 2:24 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> We are talking about document quality and a brand reflection of that.
> I would be the first to agree that there are awful documents that came
> through the IETF stream and that many good documents have come though
> other streams. However, what people are looking for is the
> understanding of the process that leads to quality that is in the IETF
> stream - I'm not saying better or worse, just a consistency of the
Disagree--I wrote that the quality of the IETF stream varies wildly.
> The quality control process of this stream is widely understood and
> very transparent.
Disagree. If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Unlike some other people, I am fine with one sentence along the lines of
"This document does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
on all non-standards track documents. That seems very clear to me. In
other words, I think your point 2:
"I want to differentiate the breadth and type of review that a
is superfluous, given a sentence stating that a document is not a
standard. The text that Olaf sent on 12/12 repeats that the document is
not a standard 3 times. This repetition is unwarranted. Is there a
desire for the text to be long, so it seems more serious? (honest question)
Below is my proposal for an Independent stream document. It is drawn
from Olaf's 12/12 text. It covers the fact the document is not a
standard, and points out that there are no assertions of value.
This document does not specify an Internet standard of any
kind; <it is published for other purposes>.
The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its
discretion and makes no statement about its value for
implementation or deployment. See Section 2 of RFCXXXX.
Is this text insufficient in some way?
Here are the cuts I made to Olaf's proposed text:
cut: "This memo is not an Internet Standards Track specification;"
add: "This document does not specify an Internet standard of any kind;"
rationale: The phrasing I pulled from the second into the first
paragraph is clearer for reader unfamiliar with the RFC series.
cut: "This memo provides information for the Internet community.
This memo does not specify and Internet standard of any kind."
rationale: Covered by status Informational, and the first paragraph.
Also uses the term memo instead of document, for no apparent reason.
cut: "This document is a contribution to the RFC Series,
independently of any other RFC stream."
rationale: First portion is obvious, second portion is
cut: "It is not a product of the IETF stream and is therefore not
a candidate for any level of Internet Standard;"
rationale: Redundant, misleading (IETF stream documents might not be
standards track), negative.
More information about the rfc-interest