[rfc-i] draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-01 -- third paragraph
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Thu Oct 16 03:08:06 PDT 2008
> Since the name of the Internet-Draft the RFC is based on is not
> mentioned in the RFC, even the relationship to a particular WG of the
> IETF is lost. To better document the sub-stream and provide guidance
> to the reader regarding the context of the document origin, I suggest
> to differentiate between WG and Individual drafts in this place, and,
> for the former sub-stream, denote the WG involved.
> Presenting this 'high level contact information' might direct the
> reader to a WG list for discussion, if appropriate, -- in particular
> in the case author(s) get out of business or cannot be reached later
> on via the email address(es) listed in the RFC.
The first two reactions I have are for and against the proposed
a. Good idea to introduce a bit of "cooperate history" into the RFC,
it may make it easier for folk to find original mailing lists etc.
b. Bad idea to stress the role of the WG in the boilerplates: IETF
documents are the product of IETF wide, cross-area, review, and that
is the point that we want to bring across.
I think that getting the WG context into the document is not
necessarily a bad idea but I have doubts about adding them in the
boilerplate. Note also that there are practical issues, like how to
deal with reference to concluded WGs.
Personally, I would think that it makes sense to add a line into the
acknowledgment section: This document is based on work chartered in
the IETF BLAFOO working group.
> To this end, I suggest to establish two variants, and replace the
> single paragraph in the draft,
> IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet
> Task Force (IETF). "
> IETF Stream, WG document:
> "This document is a product of the <xxx> Working Group of the
> Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)."
> IETF Stream, Individual submission:
> "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
> where <xxx> is to be replaced by the official name of the WG,
> followed by its acronym in parentheses.
> Note #1: The proposed text for the second sub-case is literally the
> original draft version.
> Note #2: Alternatively, only the WG acronym could be used for <xxx>,
> or the acronym could be given first, with the long name in
> Note #3: The draft already follows a similar idea for the IRTF
> stream -- see three paragraphs later in the draft.
IRTF review processes are different from the IETF review processes so
my argument (b) above may not apply...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20081016/1d638790/PGP.bin
More information about the rfc-interest