[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
rsayre at mozilla.com
Thu Jan 8 11:09:26 PST 2009
On 1/8/09 1:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 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.
I agree that #3 is likely to be implicitly condescending. I also think
it will be difficult to combine #2 and #3, since some IETF documents do
not receive the kind of review that standards track documents do.
More information about the rfc-interest