[rfc-i] draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-06 : overlooked details?
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Sat Jan 31 04:22:07 PST 2009
On Jan 31, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> 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.
So this can be fixed... would you be so kind?
What are your thoughts about Klensin's point 3.
Personally I think that this document is about the headers and
boilerplates of RFCs. Not about Internet-Drafts. (Don;t think we have
such crisp definitions for Internet-Drafts).
Also I think that there are a few things that the RFC Editor will need
to be aware off to create the appropriate boilerplate, but I don;t
think there is any wizzard science here.
Stream, category, and type of consensus (for IETF and IRTF streams)
that is at first sight all that goes into the mix.
I am traveling and meeting for almost the whole month of February.
Having fun... nah.. not right now.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090131/40f573da/PGP.bin
More information about the rfc-interest