[rfc-i] I-D Boilerplate Question (not related to IPR, promised!)

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Feb 1 12:11:33 PST 2009


On 2009-02-01 07:54, Joe Touch wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> I like recommending - but not requiring - the WG name. People print
>>>>> these docs out, and it's useful to know what the context of the work
>>>>> is.
>>>>>
>>>>> No harm if they don't follow it, though.
>>>>> ...
>>>> Indeed (I just upgraded rfc2629.xslt to mirror xml2rfc's behavior).
>>>>
>>>> Do we have a recommendation for non-WG submissions?
>>> Individual?
>> Sponsoring AD or Area?
> 
> Right; the phrases would be:
> 
> 	IETF XXXXX WG
> 	IRTF XXXXX WG
> 	IRTF XXXXX Area
> 	IETF XXXXX Area
> 	IAB
> 	Individual
> 
> etc.

Please don't over-regulate. Can't we leave this to common sense?

   Brian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list