[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Jan 8 10:35:17 PST 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rfc-interest