[rfc-i] headers and boilerplates last minute proposal

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Tue Apr 7 16:38:43 PDT 2009


Hi,

Coming back to this issue -- consider the following changes (not yet 
implemented in the XML -- apologies for the length of this file, but it 
seemed clearest to keep all context here, and I have in-lined the 
proposed edits using "OLD" and "NEW"):

> 
> 
> Network Working Group                                     L. Daigle, Ed.
> Internet-Draft                                           O. Kolkman, Ed.
> Updates: 4844, 2223
> (if approved)                                Internet Architecture Board
> Intended status: Informational                                     (IAB)
> Expires: September 3, 2009                                 March 2, 2009
> 
> 
>                On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
>                draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07
> 
> Status of this Memo
> 
>    This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
>    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> 
>    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
>    Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
>    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
>    Drafts.
> 
>    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
>    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
>    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
>    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
> 
>    The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
>    http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
> 
>    The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
>    http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
> 
>    This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2009.
> 
> Copyright Notice
> 
>    Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
>    document authors.  All rights reserved.
> 
>    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
>    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
>    publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
>    Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
>    and restrictions with respect to this document.
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 1]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements.
>    This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect
>    current usage and requirements of RFC publication.  In particular,
>    this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source
>    of RFC creation and review.
> 
> 
> Table of Contents
> 
>    1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
>    2.  RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
>    3.  RFC Structural Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
>      3.1.  The title page header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
>      3.2.  The Status of this Memo  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
>        3.2.1.  Paragraph 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
>        3.2.2.  Paragraph 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
>        3.2.3.  Paragraph 3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
>        3.2.4.  Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
>      3.3.  Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
>      3.4.  Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . .  9
>    4.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
>    5.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
>    6.  RFC Editor Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
>    7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
>      7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
>      7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
>    Appendix A.  Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates . . . 12
>      A.1.  IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
>      A.2.  IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . 12
>      A.3.  IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . . 13
>      A.4.  IAB Informational  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
>      A.5.  IRTF Experimental  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
>    Appendix B.  IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 15
>    Appendix C.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
>    Appendix D.  Document Editing Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
>      D.1.  version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
>      D.2.  version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
>      D.3.  version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
>      D.4.  version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
>      D.5.  version 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
>      D.6.  version 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
>      D.7.  version 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
>    Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 2]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>    Previously RFCs (e.g.  [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that
>    were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons.  They also
>    contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the
>    document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document
>    interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents.
> 
>    As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been
>    increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to
>    make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it
>    describes.  Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as
>    part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs
>    that may have had a very different review and approval process.
>    Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving
>    text of "Notes" included in the published RFC.
> 
>    With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844], it is
>    appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of
>    standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure
>    better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the
>    review and approval processes defined for each stream.
> 
>    This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC
>    boilerplate structure, and provides a comprehensive approach to
>    updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC
>    document and content status.  Most of the historical structure
>    information is collected from [RFC2223].
> 
>    The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as
>    practically possible after the document has been approved for
>    publication.
> 
> 
> 2.  RFC Streams and Internet Standards
> 
>    Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet Standards-
>    related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet
>    Standards-related documents.
> 
>    The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards
>    Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing
>    and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs.  These, and any other
>    standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are
>    reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF
>    Stream.
> 
>    Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 3]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security,
>    congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
>    protocols.  They have also not been subject to approval by the
>    Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide
>    last call.  Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF
>    Stream documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any
>    purpose.
> 
>    Refer to [RFC2026], [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis], and [RFC4844] and
>    their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC
>    streams.
> 
> 
> 3.  RFC Structural Elements

OLD (-07) TEXT:
<empty>

NEW TEXT:

This section describes the elements that are commonly found in RFCs 
published today.  For the sake of clarity, this document specifies the 
elements precisely as a specification.  However, this is not intended to 
cast the current format in stone.  Details of formatting are decided by 
the RFC Editor.  Substantive changes to the header and boilerplate 
structure and content may be undertaken in the future, and are subject 
to general oversight and review by the IAB.

> 
> 3.1.  The title page header
> 
>    An RFC title page header can be described as follows:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <document source>                                          <author name>
> Request for Comments: <RFC number>                [<author affiliation>]
> [<subseries ID> <subseries number>]    [more author info as appropriate]
> [<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>]
> Category: <category>
>                                                             <month year>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Network Working Group                                          T. Dierks
> Request for Comments: 4346                                   Independent
> Obsoletes: 2246                                              E. Rescorla
> Category: Standards Track                                     RTFM, Inc.
>                                                               April 2006
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    The right column contains author name and affiliation information as
>    well as the RFC publication month.  Conventions and restrictions for
>    these elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual
>    stream definitions.
> 
>    This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left
>    column:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 4]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    <document source>  This describes the area where the work originates.
>       Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group.
>       "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's
>       IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and
>       whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got
>       together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols
>       [RFC0003].  Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working Group" in
>       order to indicate the originating stream.
> 
>       The <document source> is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in
>       [RFC4844] and its successors.  At the time of this publication,
>       the streams, and therefore the possible entries are:
> 
>       *  Internet Engineering Task Force
> 
>       *  Internet Architecture Board
> 
>       *  Internet Research Task Force
> 
>       *  Independent
> 
>    Request for Comments: <RFC number>  This indicates the RFC number,
>       assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document.  This
>       element is unchanged.
> 
>    <subseries ID> <subseries number>  Some document categories are also
>       labeled as a subseries of RFCs.  These elements appear as
>       appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the
>       documents number within that series.  Currently, there are
>       subseries for BCPs [RFC2026], STDs [RFC1311], and FYIs [RFC1150].
>       These subseries numbers may appear in several RFCs.  For example,
>       when a new RFC obsoletes or updates an old one, the same subseries
>       number is used.  Also, several RFCs may be assigned the same
>       subseries number: a single STD, for example, may be composed of
>       several RFCs, each of which will bear the same STD number.  This
>       element is unchanged.
> 
>    [<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>]  Some relations between RFCs in the
>       series are explicitly noted in the RFC header.  For example, a new
>       RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs.  Currently two
>       relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223].
>       Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]).

OLD (-07) text:

>       Other types of relations may be defined elsewhere.

NEW text:

Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor and may 
appear in future RFCs.

> 
>    Category: <category>  This indicates the initial RFC document
>       category of the publication.  These are defined in [RFC2026].
>       Currently, this is always one of: Standards Track, Best Current
>       Practice, Experimental, Informational, or Historic.  This element
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 5]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>       is unchanged.
> 
> 3.2.  The Status of this Memo
> 
>    The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC,
>    including the distribution statement.  This text is included
>    irrespective of the source stream of the RFC.
> 

OLD (-07) text:

>    From now on, the "Status of This Memo" will start with a single

NEW text:

Upon approval of this document, the "Status of This Memo" will start 
with a single

>    sentence describing the status.  It will also include a statement
>    describing the stream-specific review of the material (which is
>    stream-dependent).  This is an important component of status, insofar
>    as it clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader
>    an understanding of how to consider its content.
> 
> 3.2.1.  Paragraph 1
> 
>    The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a
>    single sentence, clearly standing out.  It depends on the category of
>    the document.
> 
>    For 'Standards Track' documents:  "This is an Internet Standards
>       Track document."
> 
>    For 'Best Current Practices' documents:  "This memo documents an
>       Internet Best Current Practice."
> 
>    For other categories  "This document is not an Internet Standards
>       Track specification; <it is published for other purposes>."
> 
>    For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of
>    RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for <it is
>    published for other purposes>.  Initial values are:
> 
>    Informational:   "it is published for informational purposes."
> 
>    Historic:   "it is published for the historical record."
> 
>    Experimental:   "it is published for examination, experimental
>       implementation, and evaluation."
> 
> 3.2.2.  Paragraph 2
> 
>    The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a
>    paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has

OLD (-07) text:

>    received.  This is defined on a per-stream basis, although there is a
>    specific structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about
>    review processes and document types.  From now on, these paragraphs
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 6]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions.  Initial text, for
>    current streams, is provided below.


NEW text:

received.  This is defined on a per-stream basis, subject to general 
review and oversight by the RFC Editor and IAB.  There is a
specific structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about
review processes and document types.  From now on, these paragraphs
will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions.  Initial text, for
current streams, is provided below.

> 
>    The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial
>    document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or
>    Historic the second paragraph opens with:
> 
>    Experimental:  "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
>       the Internet community."
> 
>    Historic:  "This document defines a Historic Document for the
>       Internet community."
> 
>    The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values
>    and may be updated by stream definition document updates.
> 
>    IETF Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
>       Task Force (IETF)."
> 
>       If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an
>       additional sentence should be added: "It represents the consensus
>       of the IETF community.  It has received public review and has been
>       approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
>       Group (IESG)."  If there has not been such a consensus call then
>       this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the
>       Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
> 
>    IAB Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture
>       Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed
>       valuable to provide for permanent record."
> 
>    IRTF Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet Research
>       Task Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
>       related research and development activities.  These results might
>       not be suitable for deployment."
> 
>       In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the
>       IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the
>       <insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
>       (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual
>       opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
>       Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)".
> 
>    Independent Stream:  "This is a contribution to the RFC Series,
>       independently of any other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen
>       to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement
>       about its value for implementation or deployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 7]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is
>    added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for
>    publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB",
>    "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of
>    Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
> 
>    For IETF stream documents a similar reference is added: "Further
>    information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2
>    of RFC XXXX." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all
>    documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of
>    Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." for all other
>    categories.
> 
> 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".
> 
> 3.2.4.  Noteworthy
> 
>    Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate
>    the initial status of a document.  During their lifetime documents
>    can change status to e.g.  Historic.  This cannot be reflected in the
>    document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered
>    to in Section 3.4.
> 
> 3.3.  Additional Notes
> 
>    Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe
>    additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status
>    of This Memo".
> 
>    While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal
>    of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear
>    to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly
>    exceptional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 8]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
> 3.4.  Other structural information in RFCs
> 
>    RFCs contain other structural informational elements.  The RFC Editor
>    is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural
>    element.  Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted
>    using a process consistent with [RFC4844].  These additions may or
>    may not require documentation in an RFC.
> 
>    Currently the following structural information is available or is
>    being considered for inclusion in RFCs:
> 
>    Copyright Notice  A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78
>       [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78
>       and BCP79 [BCP79].  The content of these statements are defined by
>       those BCPs.
> 
>    ISSN  The International Standard Serial Number [ISO3297]: ISSN 2070-
>       1721.  The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title
>       regardless of language or country in which it is published.  The
>       ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique
>       identification of a serial publication.
> 
>    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].
> 
> 
> 4.  Security considerations
> 
>    This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an
>    RFC.  Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause
>    interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems.
> 
> 
> 5.  IANA considerations
> 
>    None.
> 
> 
> 6.  RFC Editor Considerations
> 
>    The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the
>    RFC series.  To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual
>    [RFC-style].  In this memo we mention a few explicit structural
>    elements that the RFC editor needs to maintain.  The conventions for
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 9]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    the content and use of all current and future elements are to be
>    documented in the style manual.
> 
>    Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one
>    method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated.  The RFC
>    editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and
>    interfaces.
> 
>    [The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards
>    editing this document and can be removed before publication]
> 
>    The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be
>    removed before publication as an RFC.  This one and Appendix D.
> 
>    This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be
>    implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit
>    tracker and the rfc-erratum portal.
> 
>    The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo.
> 
>    References [RFC-style], [BCP78] and [BCP79] have been constructed.
>    Please bring these in line with RFC Editorial conventions.
> 
>    In section Section 3.4: For the final publication, it should be
>    warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity.
> 
> 
> 7.  References
> 
> 7.1.  Normative References
> 
>    [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
>               3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
> 
>    [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis]
>               Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
>               Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
>               draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06 (work in progress),
>               November 2008.
> 
>  7.2.   Informative References
> 
>     [ISO3297]   Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and
>               documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and
>               description. , "Information and documentation -
>               International standard serial number (ISSN)" , 09 2007 .
> 
>     [RFC0003]   Crocker, S. , "Documentation conventions" , RFC 3 ,
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009              [Page 10]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>               April 1969 .
> 
>     [RFC1311]   Postel, J. , "Introduction to the STD Notes" , RFC 1311
>               , March 1992 .
> 
>     [RFC1150]   Malkin, G.  and J. Reynolds , "FYI on FYI: Introduction
>               to the FYI Notes" , RFC 1150 , March 1990 .
> 
>     [RFC2223]   Postel, J.  and J. Reynolds , "Instructions to RFC
>               Authors" , RFC 2223 , October 1997 .
> 
>     [RFC2629]   Rose, M. , "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML" , RFC 2629
>               , June 1999 .
> 
>     [RFC3979]   Bradner, S. , "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
>               Technology" , BCP 79 , RFC 3979 , March 2005 .
> 
>     [RFC4844]   Daigle, L.  and Internet Architecture Board , "The RFC
>               Series and RFC Editor" , RFC 4844 , July 2007 .
> 
>     [RFC4749]   Sollaud, A. , "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio
>               Codec" , RFC 4749 , October 2006 .
> 
>     [RFC5143]   Malis, A. , Brayley, J. , Shirron, J. , Martini, L. ,
>               and S. Vogelsang , "Synchronous Optical Network/
>               Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit
>               Emulation Service over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation" ,
>               RFC 5143 , February 2008 .
> 
>     [RFC5378]   Bradner, S.  and J. Contreras , "Rights Contributors
>               Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 , RFC 5378 ,
>               November 2008 .
> 
>     [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]
>                Ginoza, S. , Hagens, A. , and R. Braden , "RFC Editor
>               Proposal for Handling RFC Errata" ,
>               draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02 (work in progress) ,
>               May 2008 .
> 
>     [BCP78]     Bradner, S., Ed.  and J. Contreras, Ed. , "Rights
>               Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 ,
>               November 2008 .
> 
>               At the moment of publication:[RFC5378]
> 
>    [BCP79]    Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual
>               Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009              [Page 11]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>               At the moment of publication:[RFC3979]and[RFC4749]
> 
>    [RFC-style]
>               RFC Editor, "RFC Style Guide",
>               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html>.
> 
> 
> Appendix A.  Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates
> 
> A.1.  IETF Standards Track
> 
>    The boilerplate for a Standards Track document that (by definition)
>    has been subject to an IETF consensus call.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status of this Memo
> 
>     This is an Internet Standards Track document.
> 
>     This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
>     (IETF).  It represents a consensus of the IETF community.  It has
>     received public review and has been approved for publication by
>     the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on
>     the Internet Standards Track is available in Section 2 of RFC
>     XXXX."
> 
>     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/ietf.html
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A.2.  IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call
> 
>    The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been subject to
>    an IETF consensus call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009              [Page 12]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status of this Memo
> 
>     This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
>     has been published for Experimental purposes.
> 
>     This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
>     community.  Discussion and suggestions for improvement are
>     requested.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
>     Task Force (IETF).  It represents a consensus of the IETF
>     community.  It has received public review and has been approved
>     for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group
>     (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for
>     any level of Internet Standards see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.
> 
>     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/ietf.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A.3.  IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call
> 
>    The boilerplate for an Experimental document that not has been
>    subject to an IETF consensus call.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status of this Memo
> 
>     This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
>     has been published for Experimental purposes.
> 
>     This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
>     community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
>     Task Force (IETF). It has been approved for publication by the
>     Internet Engineering Steering Group.  Not all documents approved
>     by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet Standards see
>     Section 2 of RFC XXXX.
> 
>     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/ietf.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A.4.  IAB Informational
> 
>    The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009              [Page 13]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status of this Memo
> 
>     This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
>     has been published for Informational purposes.
> 
>     This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board
>     (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable
>     to provide for permanent record. Documents approved for
>     publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of
>     Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
> 
>     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/iab.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A.5.  IRTF Experimental
> 
>    The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been produced
>    by the IRTF and for which there was no RG consensus.  This variation
>    is the most verbose boilerplate in the current set.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status of this Memo
> 
>     This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
>     has been published for Experimental purposes.
> 
>     This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
>     community. This document is a product of the Internet Research
>     Task Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
>     related research and development activities.  These results might
>     not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the individual
>     opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of
>     the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for
>     publication by the IRTF are not a candidate for any level of
>     Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
> 
>     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/irtf.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009              [Page 14]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
> Appendix B.  IAB members at time of approval
> 
>    The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in
>    alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart
>    Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba,
>    Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave
>    Thaler, and Lixia Zhang.  In addition, the IAB included two ex-
>    officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive
>    Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.
> 
> 
> Appendix C.  Acknowledgements
> 
>    Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza,
>    and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration.
> 
>    Various people have made suggestions that improved the document.
>    Among them are: Lars Eggert, Alfred Hoenes, and Joe Touch.
> 
>    This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
> 
> 
> Appendix D.  Document Editing Details
> 
>    [To Be Removed before publication]
> 
>    $Id: headers-boilerplates.xml 74 2009-03-02 12:42:05Z olaf $
> 
> D.1.  version 00->01
> 
>    Fixed the header so it appropriately shows that the document updates
>    RFC 4844, 2223.  And added a link to 3932-bis that should appear in
>    tandem with this publication.
> 
>    Introduced the "Other structural information in RFCs" section and
>    moved the ISSN number from the front matter to this section.  The
>    "Other structural information in RFCs" intends to give very rough
>    guidance providing the RFC editor with sufficient freedom to move
>    pieces around and edit them to please the eye and mind.
> 
>    Modified the last sentence 3rd paragraph of the Status of this memo
>    section for the IRTF Stream in accordance to a suggestion by Aaron
>    Falk; Indicating that review happened by the IRSG and not indicating
>    that review did not happen by the IESG.
> 
>    Introduced the square brackets around the <author affiliation> in the
>    header.  To highlight this is an optional element.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009              [Page 15]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    The definition of the "Clarifies" relation has been taken out.  There
>    are arguments that introducing the relation needs a bit more thought
>    and is better done by a separate document.
> 
>    Provided the RFC Editor with responsibility to maintain several text
>    pieces.
> 
>    In Section 3.2 some modifications were applied to the text.
> 
>    The <description> contains the full name of the stream.
> 
>    RFC2223 and 4844 moved to the informative reference section.
>    Although I am not sure if those are not normative.  Guidance!!!
> 
> D.2.  version 01->02
> 
>    Fixed some editorial nits and missing references.
> 
>    Clarified that the status and category are initial.
> 
>    Added boilerplate text for documents that are initially published as
>    Historic.
> 
>    Added members of IAB, and removed those members from acknowledgements
> 
>    Added References to BCP78 and BCP79.  The exact formatting of those
>    references may need to be done by the RFC editor.
> 
>    Added text to recognize occurrences of variations of "Obsolete" and
>    "Update"
> 
> D.3.  version 02->03
> 
>    Stray language in the "IAB members at time of approval" section
>    removed.
> 
> D.4.  version 03->04
> 
>    Addressed the minor nit from Brian Carpenter.
> 
>    Reference to style guide stet to styleguide.html
> 
> D.5.  version 04->05
> 
>    References updated to reflect BCP78 being updated
> 
>    Submitted under new boilerplate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009              [Page 16]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    Rewording of boilerplate material based on rfc-interest discussion
>    starting with http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/
>    2008-December/001078.html
> 
>    Added examples in Appendix A
> 
> D.6.  version 05->06
> 
>    Nits corrected
> 
>    Fixede Boilerplate for IETF stream document without IETF consensus.
> 
>    Corruption of examples due to XML bug corrected
> 
> D.7.  version 06->07
> 
>    Nits corrected
> 
>    Fixed inconsistency: Request for feedback only appeared in the
>    Experimental category, moved this to the "Update to this memo
>    section"
> 
>    Changed the content of the 3rd paragraph of document status to be a
>    static (per stream) pointer to finding more information about the
>    document status, errata, and providing feedback.  This was to address
>    the concern of having dynamic (per-document) text in the boilerplate,
>    if this "updates" section was document specific.
> 
> 
> Authors' Addresses
> 
>    Leslie Daigle (editor)
> 
>    Email: daigle at isoc.org, leslie at thinkingcat.com
> 
> 
>    Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)
> 
>    Email: olaf at nlnetlabs.nl
> 
> 
>    Internet Architecture Board
> 
>    Email: iab at iab.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009              [Page 17]
> 


John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Monday, March 09, 2009 12:27:02 -0400 Leslie Daigle
> <leslie at thinkingcat.com> wrote...
> 
>> Hi Olaf,
>>
>> I'm highly supportive of making sure the RFC Editor has
>> adequate room to  do their work, which does include ensuring
>> appropriate look and feel.
>> ...
> 
> Leslie, as the IAB member responsible for raising the issue and
> proposing text similar to this as a solution, let me try to
> respond.    I've actually got two separate issues, but they
> interconnect.
> 
> Without trying to talk about the pieces into which it is
> proposed to split the RFC Editor, I think there is a fundamental
> tension here between "RFC Editor as an independent entity,
> working in partnership with the IAB and the various streams" and
> "RFC Editor as someone's employee / not-very-independent
> contractor, subject to very close direction and supervision".
> While that tension has existed in this process since RFC 4844
> was being written (or earlier), the various documents, including
> 4844 and the RFC Editor Model draft (but IMO not this one), have
> consistently taken the first position.  I believe that position
> is appropriate.
> 
> However, if we are serious about it, then the _entire_ style
> manual has got to be an RFC Editor responsibility, not just
> whatever you intend by "look and feel".  The IAB should have
> review authority and responsibility, and that should extend to
> being able to say, e.g., "no, there was a reason why we
> suggested putting that text in that place" or even "those
> particular words were important, please use them", but not to
> micromanaging the RFC Editor by supplying and imposing parts of
> the Style Manual.  
> 
> The purpose of the suggested paragraph (in this regard) was to
> get (and keep) the IAB out of  the Style Manual writing business
> and the micromanagement business in general.  As I have told the
> IAB, I'm concerned both about getting roles mixed up and about
> whether the IAB will have, and will want to allocate, sufficient
> bandwidth to apply this level of management and intervention
> long-term.  As a member of the community (not yet an IAB member)
> I think that making a long-term commitment to allocating IAB
> bandwidth that way would be a mistake.  I hope you agree.  I
> think better fixes to the document than that paragraph are
> possible (see below), but they would have required much more
> extensive rewriting.  Based on Olaf's guidance that it was
> important to get this out, I suggested a global patch.
> 
> So that is the first of the two issues.
>  
>> However, I believe the proposed text is too vague, and subject
>> to  misinterpretation.  Reading it without the context that
>> created it, this  reads to me as saying "Despite the fact that
>> this looks like a  specification, it isn't;  and any and all
>> parts of it may change  randomly and without the kind of
>> community discussion that lead to this  version."
> 
> I suggest that, if the RFC Editor starts blowing off
> constructive and specific suggestions from the IAB (or anyone
> else) without careful consideration, community discussion, etc.,
> there is an operational and contractual problem quite
> independent of, and much more serious than, this document.
> Certainly the current RFC Editor has not done so and I do not
> believe it has occurred in the entire history of the series.
> It would be a problem that started with either a fatally bad
> breakdown of RFC Editor functions and relations and cumulated in
> a choice of RFC Editor (or RFC Editor components) who felt no
> responsibility to the community, could not be managed, and was
> inclined to go off on its/their own regardless of community
> input.  If the IAOC and/or IAB make choices that bad, I don't
> believe the specificity in this document will help much.   So I
> can't get, in any practical way, from anything that was said in
> the note Olaf circulated to "change randomly".  
> 
> If you are anticipating that sort of problem, I don't think the
> fix lies here but in an update to 4844 (which I believe is
> adequate, but you may not), modifications to the "RFC Editor
> Model" document, and/or specific contractual language in the RFP
> and beyond (reviewed and vetted by the community) that makes it
> clear that the RFC Editor is supposed to pay careful attention
> when the IAB says something reasonable, to give the IAB the
> benefit of the doubt about what is reasonable, to pay attention
> to the reasoning behind the suggestions as well as the
> suggestions themselves, to raise issues that might be
> controversial on this list or in other forums, and generally to
> engage in a dialogue about anything that is controversial or
> likely to become controversial.  Again, I have no reason to
> believe that such text should be necessary for any entity who
> should be given any part of the RFC Editor pie, but YMMD.
> 
>> The document already indicated where the RFC Editor had final
>> say over  wording, and indicated that such wording was
>> "initial values".  If the  document needs to be clearer about
>> what is, or is not changeable text,  or the contexts in which
>> further input is needed/not applicable, let's  make it clearer
>> in the appropriate places.
> 
> Actually, it does not indicate that.  It is extremely specific
> and prescriptive, down to the format of the headers.  It does
> say "Initial text" in 3.2.2, but it is unclear about how rigid
> that text is and about the updating procedures, and then says
> "...may be updated by stream definition document updates" a
> situation that could create a "too many masters" situation for
> the RFC Editor  (and that implies relationships that lie
> properly within the scope of the RFC Editor Model document
> and/or RFC4844bis.  If you want this to be an IAB document,
> stemming from the IAB's oversight role, every one of those
> statements would, at least, have to require IAB sign-off on the
> stream documents (or whatever) that give direction to the RFC
> Editor.  Put differently, if the streams are able to instruct
> the RFC Editor with regard to specific text or format without
> IAB signoff, one has created a management nightmare for both the
> RFC Editor and the IAB.  
> 
> In addition, because instruction of the type implied from the
> stream controllers would be direction at the level of which
> paragraphs fall where and in what order --rather than
> recommendations to be incorporated into the overall style
> manual-- I'd still complain about micromanagement.  That may not
> be what you intended, but it is consistent with what the
> document says.
> 
> Most of the rest of the document reads like a specification,
> with very specific and directive language (not like anything
> that could be construed as initial text that could be updated as
> part of, e.g., a style manual process) until one gets to Section
> 3.4, where it says "The RFC Editor is responsible for the
> positioning and layout of these structural element".  There,
> please note that, in addition to the grammatical problem (which
> I assume the RFC Editor would catch and fix if that is still
> permitted), the implication is that the RFC Editor is not part
> of the process of _defining_ those structural elements, only for
> figuring out where they go (and one of those elements may be
> subject to legal requirements and constraints, so the choices
> may be more limited than the statement implies).   That is
> inconsistent with the Style Manual responsibility and the
> general responsibility of the RFC Editor to assure the integrity
> and stylistic consistency of the series.  
> 
> One could devise other approaches and reflect them in this
> document with fairly extensive rewrites but the easy solution is
> exactly what the RFC Editor Model document and 4844 seem to
> anticipate -- to engage the RFC Editor in the planning and
> specification process so there are no surprises about what comes
> out, but to formally view all of these things as more-or-less
> strong input to the RFC Editor and the Style Manual process.
> 
> All of that could be fixed section-by-section, but I don't
> believe that it would be a fast patch, guaranteed to be
> error-free the first time.  Hence the suggestion of a patch
> rather than a rewrite although, if there were no time
> constraints and an opportunity for multiple review cycles, I
> would prefer the rewrite.   
> 
> That issue also leads directly to my second concern.  The IETF
> has an extremely poor track record for getting this sort of
> thing right on the first try and without implementation and
> deployment experience.  That is not just my pessimism showing
> through; the recent requirement that certain text appear on the
> first page of RFCs and I-Ds when, in practice, it won't fit
> there given other required material for that page, is an
> excellent, and I fear typical, example.  With this document,
> there has been a bit of a dance about the possibility of queuing
> it with the RFC Editor for publication but with the intent of
> making substantive changes at AUTH48 if problems were noticed on
> implementation (a procedure to which I also objected, both weeks
> ago on this list and in the IAB -- because AUTH48 edits are
> invisible to the community, I believe it is important to not set
> any precedents for that phase being used for anything but
> corrections to editing difficulties introduced in, or not caught
> by, the RFC Editing process).
> 
> That track record suggests that, if problems are found with this
> document after publication, we should not require new RFCs
> (updating this one or providing new stream-specific
> recommendations) to get them fixed.  We would, instead, be far
> better off if the problem could be pointed out to the RFC
> Editor, a fix proposed by the RFC Editor and quickly reviewed by
> the IAB, and then implemented.  The document, as written without
> the new paragraph, appears to make that nearly impossible.  The
> added flexibility that would come with unambiguously returning
> the style manual (all of it) to the primary control of the RFC
> Editor (I should not need to keep saying this, but "subject to
> IAB review to the extent the IAB considers necessary") isn't an
> invitation to "random changes" at the whim of some capricious
> RFC Editor but an opportunity for flexibility and the rapid
> application of good sense when it is appropriate.
> 
>> Page layouts were discussed considerably on this list, at
>> least to the  extent of determining which parts were headers
>> and which were elsewhere  in boilerplate (or, even, not in
>> boilerplate).  While I certainly  acknowledge that the RFC
>> Editor should have the ability to adjust the  series, it is
>> important to indicate how the import of the opinions 
>> expressed in this discussion will be factored into future
>> changes.
> 
> And the document does not do that.  It does explain some (but
> only some) of the reasoning for those decisions, but does not
> specify any change model that would, of necessity, factor those
> considerations in.  Historically, the RFC Editor has been better
> at institutional memory and consistency of behavior than most
> other elements of the IETF community.  If and as that changes
> with new contracts, new models, and perhaps more rapid turnover,
> we need to find ways to preserve information like the opinions
> to which you refer --either in appendices to the style manual,
> in RFCs that offer guidance and principles, or elsewhere.  But
> it should be in materials that are less focused on specifying
> very specific text and instructions as to where to put it.  In
> other words, we are agreed about the principle you express
> above.  I just do not believe that a document with this content
> and organization is the way to do that and, precisely because it
> is focused on text and not descriptions of "opinions expressed"
> and consensus reached, that it might actually turn out to be
> pathological is it is not precisely correct.
> 
> Again, my individual first preference is a rewrite of the
> document to better reflect the principles you are advocating, to
> make the boundaries of authority and responsibility completely
> clear, and to clearly specify a change process that does not
> require new RFCs for obvious cases.   I prefer the patching
> paragraph only if there is a time constraint on getting this
> finished and out the door, which I have been assured that there
> is.
> 
> regards,
>      john
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



Leslie.

-- 

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


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list