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

John C Klensin john+rfc at jck.com
Sat Feb 14 13:46:30 PST 2009



--On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:25:19 -0500 Leslie Daigle
<leslie at thinkingcat.com> wrote:

>...
> 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
>     http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/<stream-id>.html"
> 
>     where <stream-id> is one of: "ietf", "iab", "irtf",
> "independent".
>...

Leslie,

This works for me.   So would a wide variety of other things, as
long as any such statement is part of the front-boilerplate and
not placed at some random point in the document.

Please note that this text is a loose end in whatever
boilerplate is supposed to be produced for I-Ds containing
pre-5378 text starting, I believe, in less than 24 hours.  I
believe that you, Olaf, and the IAB are doing a serious
disservice to the community by leaving the I-D version of this
boilerplate up in the air. Even if the decision as to what
should be there ought to be the responsibility of some other
body (such as the IESG) to produce and get community consensus
on, the IAB, by initiating this document at this time, becomes
the token-holder until the token is accepted by someone else.

Just my opinion, of course, but asking document authors and
tool-builders to change things multiple times, especially this
close to IETF and with (I assume) many documents waiting in the
queue due to the 5378 problems is bad news.

    john



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list