[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
John C Klensin
john+rfc at jck.com
Thu Jan 8 10:59:10 PST 2009
--On Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:35 -0800 Joe Touch
<touch at ISI.EDU> wrote:
>>> 3) Does the boilerplate explicitly note that non-IETF
>>> documents are not the product of the IETF?
>> 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
> 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.
While I am trying to keep an open mind about this, I agree with
Joe that positive statements are likely to be a lot easier to
get right than ones that specify "not an IETF spec" without, at
the same time, implying that anything that is not is somehow
inferior or defective.
More information about the rfc-interest