[rfc-i] headers and boilerplates last minute proposal

[Leslie Daigle]

Russ,

ACK -- in this message, I was only dealing with proposed changes for the 
specific issue in the thread.

So -- no disagreement with your point below.

Leslie.

Russ Housley wrote:
> Leslie:
> 
> 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".
> 
> Russ

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------