[rfc-i] draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-06 : overlooked details?

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Fri Feb 13 14:25:19 PST 2009

I'm drafting the revised text for the -07 version of the document.

Here's the text I have to address the concerns discussed a couple of 
weeks ago:

3.2.3.  Paragraph 3

    The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant
    information can be found.  As boilerplate, this text should not be
    document-specific, although the material to which it refers may lead
    to document-specific information.  The exact wording is subject to
    change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text is:

    "Information about the current status of this document and any errata
    to it may be obtained at

    where <stream-id> is one of: "ietf", "iab", "irtf", "independent".

And, a worked example is:

Status of this Memo

     This is an Internet Standards Track document.

     This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
     (IETF).  It represents a consensus of the IETF community.  It has
     received public review and has been approved for publication by
     the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on
     the Internet Standards Track is available in Section 2 of RFC

     Information about the current status of this document and any
     errata to it may be obtained at 

Formatting issues aside, does that seem about reasonable?


Leslie Daigle wrote:
> I think I like it a lot.  I'd like us to be a bit more crisp about what 
> "URL" might be -- specifically, that it is not an individual URL per 
> document, but at most one per stream.
> This is because I take some of the argument against the formulation (in 
> -06) as being document-specific and out of place in boilerplate.  Almost 
> anything a document would include by way of document-specific pointers 
> to "further discussion" etc is unlikely to persist usefully over time. 
> For example -- references to WGs will become unuseful.
> By contrast -- pointers to RFC series websites should not.
> Leslie.
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> At 1:22 PM -0500 1/30/09, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> By contrast, assume that, instead of the reference called for by
>>> 3.2.3, it simply said, e.g.,
>>>     Information about the current status of this document
>>>     and any errata to it may be obtained at <URL>.
>>> (please note the symmetry between this and the existing forward
>>> pointer for standards-track documents, which reads:
>>>    'Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
>>>    Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the
>>>    standardization state and status...'
>>> )
>>> and the entire story becomes part of the front-matter
>>> boilerplate, perhaps with a track-dependent URL, without any of
>>> the complexity of cross-references to sections, additional
>>> clutter, need for rules about what authors can and cannot add to
>>> specified material in the section, etc.
>> That sounds like a very good suggestion.
>> --Paul Hoffman, Director
>> --VPN Consortium


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

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list