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

[Leslie Daigle]

I think I like it a lot.  I'd like us to be a bit more crisp about what 
"URL" might be -- specifically, that it is not an individual URL per 
document, but at most one per stream.

This is because I take some of the argument against the formulation (in 
-06) as being document-specific and out of place in boilerplate.  Almost 
anything a document would include by way of document-specific pointers 
to "further discussion" etc is unlikely to persist usefully over time. 
For example -- references to WGs will become unuseful.

By contrast -- pointers to RFC series websites should not.


Leslie.

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 1:22 PM -0500 1/30/09, John C Klensin wrote:
>> By contrast, assume that, instead of the reference called for by
>> 3.2.3, it simply said, e.g.,
>>
>> 	Information about the current status of this document
>> 	and any errata to it may be obtained at <URL>.
>>
>> (please note the symmetry between this and the existing forward
>> pointer for standards-track documents, which reads:
>>
>>    'Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
>>    Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the
>>    standardization state and status...'
>> )
>>
>> and the entire story becomes part of the front-matter
>> boilerplate, perhaps with a track-dependent URL, without any of
>> the complexity of cross-references to sections, additional
>> clutter, need for rules about what authors can and cannot add to
>> specified material in the section, etc.
> 
> That sounds like a very good suggestion.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> 

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------