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

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Mon Jan 26 02:37:40 PST 2009


I failed to be complete in the list of edits, see below.


> CONTEXT:
> 3.4.  Other structural information in RFCs
>
>   RFCs contain other structural informational elements.  The RFC  
> Editor
>   is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural
>   element.  Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted
>   using a process consistent with [RFC4844].  These additions may or
>   may not require documentation in an RFC.
>
>   Currently the following structural information is available or is
>   being considered for inclusion in RFCs:
>
>  [...]
> OLD:
>  Updates to the RFC  A reference identifying where more information
>      about the document can be found.  This may include information
>      whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's
>      originating stream, a listing of possible errata, and information
>      on how to submit errata as described in
>      [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process].
>
> NEW:
>  Updates to the RFC  A reference identifying where more information
>      about the document can be found.  This may include information
>      whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's
>      originating stream, a listing of possible errata, information  
> about
>      how to provide feedback and suggestion, and information on how to
>      submit errata as described in [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process].
>
>
>
> By moving out of the boilerplate to this section there is a bit more  
> leverage to, in the reference add stream specific information (you  
> could think of a pointer to which WG developed the protocol) and  
> keep it up to date (i.e. when the WG is not there and the comments  
> should go to the area) without having to redefine headers in this  
> document.
>
>
> Obviously this is combined with
>
>
> CONTEXT:
>   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:
> OLD:
>   Experimental:  "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
>      the Internet community.  Discussion and suggestions for
>      improvement are requested."
> NEW:
>   Experimental:  "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
>      the Internet community."


and in 3.2.3:

OLD:
  Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' section of this document for
     information on where to find the current status of this document
     and the availability of errata for this memo.
NEW:
  Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' section of this document for
     information on how to provide feedback, where to find the current
     status of this document, and the availability of errata for this
     memo.
-------------- 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/20090126/adc70ee5/PGP.bin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list