[rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
housley at vigilsec.com
Fri Jan 16 08:33:58 PST 2009
At 09:27 AM 1/16/2009, Thomas Narten wrote:
>Maybe I'm losing track of things here, but...
> > A.2. IETF Experimental
> > The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been
> > subject to an IETF consensus call
> > ... 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.
>Do all WG documents that are going for experimental now get last
>called (and is this documented process, or just existing practice)?
>I.e, what does the boilerplate look like for an IETF experimental
>document that has not been last-called (if such documents can happen)?
>Do we have a silly state in the system that is not covered in the
>proposed boilerplate changes?
AD Sponsored documents to Standards Track require review in the IETF,
IETF Last Call, and IESG approval. AD Sponsored documents to
Experimental/Informational require some form of review in the IETF
and IESG approval. While RFC 2026 does not require the latter type of
documents to go through an IETF Last Call, this statement suggests
that it is always performed. It is needed to ensure adequate review
and transparency in a situation where the pending publication of the
document may not be known by any Working Group or the IETF community at large.
But, since RFC 2026 does not require these Last Calls, the
boilerplate should probably not require them either. It would be
nice if it matched what was actually done.
More information about the rfc-interest