[rfc-i] Important: do not publish "draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08" as is!

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Tue Dec 22 02:50:45 PST 2009



Julian,

You wrote:
> 
> This problem was reported over three weeks ago. Are we really incapable 
> to fix something simple like that within three weeks?


We are at a point where making trivial changes to headers and boilerplates leads to discussion about more substantive matters and causes even more delay, folk wanted it done. It is unfortunate that the stutter (I agree its there and that its ugly) remains in the document. 

Headers and boilerplates lives on this tangent between community wishes, RFC oversight, and RFC Editor series continuity and style. Having learned from getting H&B done, I believe that in the future such efforts should be pulled by the RSE, with IAB oversight and not by the IAB with RFC-Editor input.


FWIW, the document allows the RFC editor  some headway in maintaining the language in the style guide.

--Olaf

[top-post, full context below.]





On Dec 22, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>> In the meantime, draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates is in AUTH48, 
>> and I have updated my document with the current changes; see 
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-hab-01>, in particular 
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-hab-01#appendix-A.1> (change 
>> list) and <http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-reschke-hab-01.txt> 
>> (diffs).
>> ...
> 
> I just heard that the RFC 5741-to-be is not going to be fixed with 
> respect to the stutter in the boilerplate, such as in:
> 
> -- snip --
> 3.1.6.2. Text of 'Status Of This Memo'
> 
> 
>    This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
>    published for the historical record.
> 
>    This document defines a Historic Document 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 (IESG).  Not all documents approved by the
>    IESG are candidate for any level of Internet Standards; see Section 2
>    of RFC 5741.
> 
>    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/info/rfc9999.
> -- snip --
> 
> (see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-hab-01#section-3.1.6.2>).
> 
> This problem was reported over three weeks ago. Are we really incapable 
> to fix something simple like that within three weeks?
> 
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

________________________________________________________ 

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                       Science Park 140, 
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list