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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Jul 8 16:17:33 PDT 2008


On 2008-07-09 02:47, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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.

"with a publication date prior to this document"

> 
>>
>>>        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".)

Yes, I see that, but "stream" is our jargon and I think it will look
odd to non-I*TF folk. I'd be OK with

  Source: IETF
  etc.

But I'm not at all insistent on this issue; it's purely cosmetic.

    Brian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list