[rfc-i] [IAB] Section Ordering in RFCs (Abstract Placement)

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Sun Jun 21 10:03:48 PDT 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



John C Klensin wrote:
>... The only people this affects,
> other than RFC Editor staff, are those who are reading RFCs.

It does affect templates used for IDs if we try to make the order of
components in an ID roughly match that in the RFC, even if not required.

I see those requests, as a maintainer of one of the templates.

> And, if one can extrapolate from the discussions on the IETF
> list some weeks ago, there is overwhelming support for a move
> that gets the Abstract where this changes puts it.

I did not question the utility of this decision, or of making them in
increments.

I am suggesting that we consider decoupling the decision to make the
change from the effective date of a change, and we limit the effective
dates to all changes (frankly, this could apply to IETF policy, template
content - quite a few things) to once a year with only extraordinary
exceptions (e.g., as would be required by immediate legal considerations).

Joe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAko+Z/QACgkQE5f5cImnZrsprgCgsJrVxqhfh8hF3W9TIdrMo+WX
8MQAn1fXUG2NeF5z0j2cZg+iHsjAow8A
=naE0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list