[rfc-i] draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-06 : overlooked details?

Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= ah at tr-sys.de
Fri Jan 23 08:13:35 PST 2009


Folks,
I have sent Olaf and Leslie a collection of nits I observed
when I once more read the latest revisionof the RFC Boilerplate
draft from scratch, and two more important observations.

I fear these topics have been overlooked in the discussion so far.


I quote literally from my message sent off-list:


--------  start quote  --------

However, I have one general concern, and one important suggestion:

The boilerplate sentence
  "Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested."
apparently now shall only be included for Experimental RFCs.

In the past, it was generally applied, and I always understood
it to be at the heart of the IETF process and culture.
I don't recall that this topic has been discussed on the list,
so it's dropping might have happened inadvertantly.  Please check.
IMHO, Proposed Standards (for instance) would need feedback
perhaps even more than Experimental documents; only for RFCs
immediately published as Historic this clause makes less sense.
In the case of Independent Submissions describing 3rd-party
protocols, RFC publication might have been sought for just this
goal, to start discussion in the IETF at large.
According to my experience, even the IAB appreciates feedback
to IAB Stream RFCs after publication.   :-)


In the 3rd paragraph of Section 2, the discussion I have observed
might be better reflected by inserting "generally":

   Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not
   reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, congestion control,
   or inappropriate interaction ...
---
   Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not
|  generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security,
   ^^^^^^^^^^
   congestion control, or inappropriate interaction ...

This insertion should take care of the observed fact that quite a
couple of Independent Submissions indeed undergo very detailed
discussion and review.

--------  end quote  --------




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list