[rfc-i] headers and boilerplates last minute proposal
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