[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
housley at vigilsec.com
Thu Jan 8 09:43:00 PST 2009
>Our debate is fundamentally about to what extent the boilerplate needs
>to be explicit. In particular:
>1) Does the boilerplate explain the situation, refer to another RFC for
>the explanation, or just state the name of the stream and leave it at that?
>2) Does the boilerplate explicitly call out that non stds track
>documents are not standards?
>3) Does the boilerplate explicitly note that non-IETF documents are not
>the product of the IETF?
I think that 1 can be a sentence or two.
I think that 2 and 3 can both be handled in one simple sentence
without being condescending.
More information about the rfc-interest