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

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Sat Jan 10 00:27:50 PST 2009






Folk,

Having caught up with the whole thread I think I got a feel for where  
consensus is going.

Jari's 3 point summary is a good hook to respond to:

> 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?


With respect to (3) my reading of where consensus is heading is that  
non-IETF documents should not mention that they are not the product of  
the IETF.

My reading wrt (2) is that there are no objections to explicitly  
saying that a document is not a STD track document.

With respect to (1) my reading is that folk do not want a long expose:  
crisp, clear and non-condescending are the keywords. It seems that  
folk do not mind a reference.

With that in mind I arrive at section 3.2. as included below. I also  
included a few examples of how boilerplates will look (they will be in  
Appendix A of the document)

I realize this is a bit more verbose than what Joe Touch was  
suggestion, but I think this level of verbosity provides a bit more  
clarity at the cost of crispness. I guess its a value call.

Please respond if you cannot consent or if you consent under a wee bit  
of protest. A "Works For Me" response is welcome too. I plan to update  
the draft somewhere around June 16 and then close the issue. In the  
mean time you can use http://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-04.txt&url2=http://www.secret-wg.org/draft-streams-headers-boilerplates.txt 
  to look at diffs.


--Olaf


------ Start --------
3.2.  The Status of this Memo

    The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC,
    including the distribution statement.  This text is included
    irrespective of the source stream of the RFC.

    From now on, the "Status of This Memo" will start with a single
    sentence describing the status.  It will also include a statement
    describing the stream-specific review of the material (which is
    stream-dependent).  This is an important component of status,  
insofar
    as it clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the  
reader
    an understanding of how to consider its content.

3.2.1.  Paragraph 1

    The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a
    single sentence, clearly standing out.  It depends on the category  
of
    the document.

    For 'Standards Track' documents:  This is an Internet Standards  
Track
       document.

    For 'Best Current Practices' documents:  This memo documents an
       Internet Best Current Practice

    For other categories  This document is not an Internet Standards
       Track specification; <it is published for other purposes>.

    For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of
    RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for <it is
    published for other purposes>.  Initial values are:

    Informational:   it is published for informational purpoases."

    Historic:   it is published for historical purpoases."

    Experimental:   it is published for experimental purpoases."

3.2.2.  Paragraph 2

    The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a
    paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document  
has
    received.  This is defined on a per-stream basis, although there  
is a
    specific structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about
    review processes and document types.  From now on, these paragraphs
    will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions.  Initial text,  
for
    current streams, is provided below.

    The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial
    document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or
    Historic the second paragraph opens with:

    Experimental:  "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
       the Internet community.  Discussion and suggestions for
       improvement are requested."

    Historic:  "This document defines a Historic Document for the
       Internet community.

    The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial  
values
    and may be updated by stream definition document updates.

    IETF Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet  
Engineering
       Task Force (IETF). "

       If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an
       additional sentence should be added: "It represents a consensus  
of
       the IETF community.  It has received public review and has been
       approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
       Group."

    IAB Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet  
Architecture
       Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed
       valuable to provide for permanent record.

    IRTF Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet Research
       Task Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
       related research and development activities.  These results might
       not be suitable for deployment.

       In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the
       IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the
       <insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
       (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual
       opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
       Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)".

    Independent Stream:  "This is a contribution to the RFC Series,
       independently of any other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen
       to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement
       about its value for implementation or deployment.

    For non-IETF stream a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is added
    with the following sentence: "Documents approved for publication by
    the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB", "IRSG", or "RFC
    Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see
    Section 2 of RFCXXXX."

3.2.3.  Paragraph 3

    The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant
    information can be found: "Please see the 'Updates to the RFC'
    section of this document for information on where to find the status
    of this document and the availability of errata for this memo." the
    exact wording is subject to change by the RFC Editor.

3.2.4.  Noteworthy

    Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate
    the initial status of a document.  During their lifetime documents
    can change status to e.g.  Historic.  This cannot be reflected in  
the
    document itself and will need be reflected in the information  
refered
    to in Section 3.4.

3.3.  Additional Notes

    Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe
    additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the  
"Status
    of This Memo".

    While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal
    of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear
    to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage  
truly
    exceptional.
----- END ------------



The Examples:


Appendix A.  Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boileplates

A.1.  IETF Standards Track

    The boilerplate for a Standards Track document that (by definition)
    has been subject to an IETF consensus call

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo

     This is an Internet Standards Track document.

     This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
     (IETF).  It represents a consensus of the IETF community.  It has
     received public review and has been approved for publication by
     the Internet Engineering Steering Group.

     Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' section of this document for
     information on where to find the status of this document and the
     availability of errata for this memo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.2.  IETF Experimental

    The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been subject  
to
    an IETF consensus call

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo

     This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
     has been published for Experimental purposes.

     This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
     community.  Discussion and suggestions for improvement are
     requested.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
     Task Force (IETF).  It represents a consensus of the IETF
     community.  It has received public review and has been approved
     for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group.

     Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' section of this document for
     information on where to find the status of this document and the
     availability of errata for this memo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.3.  IAB Informational

    The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo

     This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
     has been published for Informational purposes.

     This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board
     (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable
     to provide for permanent record. Documents approved for
     publication by IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet
     Standard; see Section 2 of RFCXXXX."

     Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' section of this document for
     information on where to find the status of this document and the
     availability of errata for this memo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.4.  IAB Informational

    The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo

     This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
     has been published for Informational purposes.

     This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any
     other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this
     document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value
     for implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for
     publication by RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of
     Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFCXXXX."

     Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' section of this document for
     information on where to find the status of this document and the
     availability of errata for this memo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.5.  IRTF Experimental

    The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been produced
    by the IRTF and for which there was no RG consensus.  This variation
    is the most verbose boilerplate in the current set.







Daigle, et al.            Expires July 14, 2009                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates       January 2009


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo

     This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
     has been published for Experimental purposes.

     This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
     community.  Discussion and suggestions for improvement are
     requested. This document is a product of the Internet Research
     Task Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
     related research and development activities.  These results might
     not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the individual
     opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of
     the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for
     publication by IRTF are not a candidate for any level of Internet
     Standard; see Section 2 of RFCXXXX."


     Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' section of this document for
     information on where to find the status of this document and the
     availability of errata for this memo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------




-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                        Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

NB: The street at which our offices are located has been
renamed to the above.




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090110/c96bf14c/PGP-0001.bin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list