[rfc-i] headers and boilerplates last minute proposal

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Wed Apr 8 13:51:40 PDT 2009


I am fine with the changes that you propose.

However, Olaf declared consensus for an rfc-specific URL (as opposed 
to a stream-specific URL), so section  3.2.3 needs a significant 
change as well.  Further, there has been discussion that this URL 
should not be the place learn "how to provide feedback" on a 
document.  To do so would require the RFC Editor to track whether a 
particular WG mail list is still open or not, and so on.  I suggest 
that the phrase be dropped.

> > 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".


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list