[rfc-i] [IAB] Section Ordering in RFCs (Abstract Placement)

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Aug 2 00:34:16 PDT 2009

John C Klensin wrote:
>>> The RFC Editor will implement this change as of 1 July 2009.
>> ...
>> How does this affect section ordering in Internet Drafts? That
>> should be consistent, if only for making generating diffs,
>> right?
> Julian, I haven't seen a response to your question, so will try
> with the understanding that I'm not speaking for anyone else.
> ...

Hi John,

understood, and thanks for the feedback.

> Ideally, yes.  But we've got a division of responsibility and
> authority here.  The RFC Editor cannot change the requirements
> and format for I-Ds, only the IESG can.  Interestingly, I've
> tested the "nits" and submission tools with the new format, and
> they don't care -- as far as they are concerned, "abstract
> first" is valid.  The only problem is that those tools seem to
> think that the text of the abstract starts after the "Abstract"
> heading and extends to the beginning of the Table of Contents if
> there is one.  That is likely to make some abstract-extracting
> tools work a little strangely.
> So, getting the I-D format changed, in practice, requires that:
> (1) The IESG decide either that it is a good idea or that they
> don't care.
> (2) The submission and related tools be updated to use a
> different heuristic for determining the end of the abstract.
> ...

Dear IESG: if you haven't discussed this yet, could you please put this 
onto your agenda?

BR, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list