[rfc-i] I-D Action:draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-00.txt

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Jul 8 07:47:42 PDT 2008


At 2:52 PM +1200 7/8/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Thanks for this.
>
>A few comments, all small or nit-sized:
>
>>  1.  Introduction
>>
>>     RFCs published before this document (e.g. the one immeditatly prior
>>     to this one [RFCXXXX-1]) (??? or is it prior to approval of this
>>     document?)
>
>Try "prior to approval and publication".

Actually, that doesn't do it either. The RFC Editor does not publish 
the documents in numerical order. I propose "publication" so that 
someone reading the RFC repository in date order will see all the 
RFCs after this one in date order having the new stream names.

>
>>        The <document source> is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in
>>        [RFC4844] and its successors.  At the time of this publication,
>>        the streams, and therefore the possible entries are:
>>
>>        *  IETF Stream
>>
>>        *  IAB Stream
>>
>>        *  IRTF Stream
>>
>>        *  Independent Stream
>
>I'm not quite sure what the word 'stream' adds here. Why not just
>omit it?

I agree with Danny on this: the terms seems lonely. "Independent" 
looks particularly odd. (I live in a town where there are lots of car 
window stickers that say "Independent". This is not a political 
statement but a brand name for skateboard equipment that is popular 
enough to be the #2 ranking on Google for the word "independent".)

>  >                                            This document has been
>>        approved for publication by the IAB and is therefore not a
>>        candidate for any level of Internet Standard, see section
>>        Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
>
>That comma should definitely be a semi-colon (3 occurrences).

+1 on the editorial nit.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list