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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Jan 13 11:21:24 PST 2009


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

Hi, all,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't like algorithmically
specified language. I tried to expand out the possibilities, and here's
what I see. See notes flagged with ++ interspersed. The status stuff
seems nice, but the stream stuff still needs work, IMO.

Joe

- --------------------------------------

The Status of this Memo

<pick one status>
  standards:
	This is an Internet Standards Track document.

  BCPs:
	This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

  informationals:
	This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification;
	it is published for informational purposes.

  historics:
	This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification;
	it is published for historical purposes.

	This document defines a Historic Document for the
	Internet community.

  experimentals:
	This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification;
	it is published for experimental purposes.

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

<end pick one status>

<pick one stream>

  <pick one IETF>

    IETF consensus:

	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.

    IETF non-consensus:

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

  <end pick one IETF>

++ note that the IETF documents are missing a phrase that refers to
section 2 of RFCXXXX.

  IAB:
	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++.

++ IMO, the portion flagged is gratuitous and not needed. Everyone
writes documents deemed useful for the permanent record.

	Documents approved for publication by the IAB
	are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see
	Section 2 of RFCXXXX.

  <pick one IRTF>

    IRTF consensus group:

	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 consensus of the
	<insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
	(IRTF).

	Documents approved for publication by the IRSG
	are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see
	Section 2 of RFCXXXX.

    IRTF non-consensus:

	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 <insert_name> Research
	Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).++

++ this paragraph seems unnecessary; we don't do this for IETF docs that
aren't group consensus.

	Documents approved for publication by the IRSG
	are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see
	Section 2 of RFCXXXX.

  Independent:

	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.++

++ the highlighted sentence above is not needed; it is already covered
by the rest of the text below. Section 2 of RFCXXXX should be clear that
only standards track documents are evaluated for implementation and
deployment in the public Internet.

	Documents approved for publication by the RFC Editor
	are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see
	Section 2 of RFCXXXX.

...
> The Examples:

The examples need to be complete; these do not appear to be.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkls6bQACgkQE5f5cImnZruPPwCgkBPuJtQ8K3iN0jaGH/GYXU1j
zBgAn3YTV9N9P6z+DNPhVBhPeDJ3658a
=Vdnt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list