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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Jan 8 10:35:17 PST 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Russ,

Russ Housley wrote:
>> 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.

My concern, and my view, is that #3 is implicitly condescending; saying
so implies that being a product of the IETF carries enough weight to
concern those who read non-products.

Overall, AFAICT, stating the positive is sufficient in all cases. I
understand why stating the negative about standards might be useful, but
all others are unwarranted.

Joe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAklmR2QACgkQE5f5cImnZrvxWgCgiI8AkpDKAWhIv/uo12Q3b+8v
Z3EAnjJ306pi6q04m5edtZLNGmE9iyyz
=s6mK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list