[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates

John C Klensin john+rfc at jck.com
Thu Jan 8 10:12:18 PST 2009



--On Thursday, January 08, 2009 12:43 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:

>> 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.

I agree with you on all three.  Of course, for 1, we already
have a traditional sentence or two ("not a standard of any
type...") that appears to me to do the job, although other
sentences would presumably be equally adequate.  And, as long as
we avoid text that is either condescending toward materials that
don't come through the IETF track (e.g., the text should not
assume that "non-IETF" implies "lower quality of either text or
review of that text"), I'm going to be happy with the result.

    john




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list