[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