[rfc-i] headers and boilerplates last minute proposal
John C Klensin
john+rfc at jck.com
Thu Apr 9 13:57:41 PDT 2009
--On Thursday, April 09, 2009 13:25 -0700 Joe Touch
<touch at ISI.EDU> wrote:
> I'm suggesting wordsmithing to this doc, of the directives on
> including text, not to the text included.
> I'm not sure how to interpret your comments - you seem to be
> saying "don't oversmith the included text", which isn't what I
> was doing.
I am actually less worried at this point about the included text
than I am about the instructions for its application. So I
think we are talking about the same material.
> Can you explain if that makes it more clear, or if not, what
> the concern is?
If I correctly understand things, you appear to be pushing for
more specific and directive language, with the assumption/
argument that, if we get the included text wrong, we can and
should go back and revise/update the RFC to change the headers
and/or boilerplate text and apply new (or even identical)
directive language to the new text.
I am suggesting that we would be much better off with directions
that tell the RFC Editor that the included text is either strong
guidance or something to be used initially until better ideas
and/or editing come along, but to leave the control in the hands
of the RFC Editor (RSE) subject to community review. (If I've
correctly understood, Leslie prefers "initially" while I prefer
"guidance", but I can live with either.)
In other words, I'm hoping for a tone in the document of "Dear
RSE, please consider the attached to be carefully-written and
carefully-reviewed material that we believe should be in the
Style Manual" with at least an implicit "when you have done
that, and when and if you make further changes in the future,
the IAB needs to review the revised Style Manual because this is
text about which the community is sensitive". That contrasts
with "Dear RSE and Production House, you are ordered to put this
exact text where this document says you should put it" (or
anything close to that), to which I would strenuously object on
the grounds of both micromanagement by committee and wasting the
More information about the rfc-interest