[rfc-i] headers and boilerplates last minute proposal

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Thu Apr 9 09:55:04 PDT 2009

Hi Joe,

Thanks for the comments, and a question in return:

My focus with the "upon approval" text below was to get the emphasis off 
"forever" in the -07 text.  That is, the -07 text had words like "from 
now on".

To get off "forever", we have to talk about the here and now.

If not "upon approval", or "upon publication", what's a better way to 
capture that?


Joe Touch wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Some minor suggestions below.
> Joe
> Leslie Daigle wrote:
>> 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"):
> ...
>>> 3.  RFC Structural Elements
>> OLD (-07) TEXT:
>> <empty>
>> 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.
> However, this is not intended to specify a single, static format.
>> 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.
> ...
>>> 3.2.  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
> The "Status of This Memo" will start...
> (why put in "upon approval"? if not approved, it won't be published as
> an RFC, and the recommendation has no effect unless published anyway.
> Shouldn't 'effect upon publication' be taken as implied in all RFCs?
> This applies throughout, regarding "upon publication", "from now on"
> (which is worse -- when is 'now'?), etc.
> Joe
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> iEYEARECAAYFAkneJQ4ACgkQE5f5cImnZrswUACfctXm9sKoaKarV4h9IBnTtQrX
> zAEAoKbj7ORanxuDk7NLoMb4+7xrUbqn
> =4Rq7


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

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list