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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Jan 13 12:35:45 PST 2009


Joe,

On 2009-01-14 08:21, Joe Touch wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't like algorithmically
> specified language. 

Nevertheless, it's the only solution that scales, given the workload
of everyone involved. After all, there's nothing (I hope) that
forbids deviation from the specified language when it's obviously
wrong.

I don't want to prolong the argument, but:

>     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.

There shouldn't be *any* IETF stream documents that lack consensus that
they are OK to publish. But even in the IETF, we've used equivalent
formulations, e.g. RFC3248, when there's consensus to publish but
not consensus on the contents.

In the IRTF this variant is essential. IRTF groups are *not* automatically
obliged to reach consensus, and factions within a research group need to be
able to publish contended research results.

    Brian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list