[rfc-i] URL Issue, was Re: draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.txt

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Fri Apr 3 05:20:13 PDT 2009


Getting back to this particular thread... we need to get this to  
closure and it is hard to read consensus from the previous messages...

Strawman:

What is in the document now is:
>
> 3.2.3.  Paragraph 3
>
>  The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant
>  information can be found.  As boilerplate, this text should not be
>  document-specific, although the material to which it refers may lead
>  to document-specific information.  The exact wording is subject to
>  change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text is:
>
>  "Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
>  and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
>  http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/<stream-id>.html"
>
>  where <stream-id> is one of: "ietf", "iab", "irtf", "independent".
>

However it seems that we also have in 3.4:

>  Updates to the RFC  A reference identifying where more information
>     about the document can be found.  This may include information
>     whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a
>     listing of possible errata, information about how to provide
>     feedback and suggestion, and information on how to submit errata
>     as described in [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process].
>
It occurs to me that those two instructions are inconsistent.

I think that what happened was that there was a clear desire to  
replace the initial reference in the boilerplate to the updates to the  
RFC section (as described in 3.4) by a direct reference.  In the cause  
of doing so the boilerplate text became more about "general  
information" than document specific information.

My strawman would be: I think the way to solve this is by moving the  
3.4 text to what is now the first half of section 3.2.3. In other words:

3.2.3.  Paragraph 3

  The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant
  information can be found.  This may include information
  whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a
  listing of possible errata, information about how to provide
  feedback and suggestion, and information on how to submit errata
  as described in [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. The exact wording,  
and URL,
  is subject to change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current  
text is:

  "Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/<stream-id>/rfc<rfc-no>"
   where <stream-id> is one of: "ietf", "iab", "irtf", "independent".


Implementation wise this URL could initially a redirect to a very  
generic page and as more tools are available/programmed it could  
become more specific. I think that is in the spirit of finding the  
best balance between prescriptiveness and RFC-Editor responsibility.



--Olaf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090403/b62cb1bb/PGP.bin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list