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

[Joe Touch]

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



Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2009-01-09 06:23, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> These statements are (mutually exclusively) useful, however:
>>
>> 	This document is an independent submission.
>>
>> 	This document is a product of the IETF.
>>
>> 	This document is a product of the IRTF.
>>
>> 	This document is a product of the IAB.
>>
>> Stating what a document IS is sufficient. Stating what it is NOT is what
>> causes the concern, via the implication that being NOT from the IETF is
>> some sort of stamp of "unchecked".
> 
> I agree, subject only to retaining the "not a standard of any kind"
> phrase in *all* non-standards track RFCs.

I agree. I.e., here's the text I would have, specifically:

	<pick one:>
		This is an Internet standards-track document, and
		describes an Internet standard in process.

		This is not Internet standards-track document,
		and does not define an Internet standard of any kind.
	<--end>

and
	<pick one:>
		This document is an independent submission.
		This document is a product of the IETF.
		This document is a product of the IRTF.
		This document is a product of the IAB.
	<--end>

For each or both in tandem, we could add "please see <document X> for
further information."

(the standards-track phrase may need wordsmithing, esp the term 'in
process').

Joe

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

iEYEARECAAYFAklmaUMACgkQE5f5cImnZrtJFQCgmchCCB4MGX0PGOIFzS7C8WVB
AbQAoMdPQQHZwyvptCgZKXy1RyYj1ojZ
=TTWd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----