[rfc-i] headers and boilerplates last minute proposal

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Mon Mar 9 09:27:02 PDT 2009


Hi Olaf,

I'm highly supportive of making sure the RFC Editor has adequate room to 
do their work, which does include ensuring appropriate look and feel.

However, I believe the proposed text is too vague, and subject to 
misinterpretation.  Reading it without the context that created it, this 
reads to me as saying "Despite the fact that this looks like a 
specification, it isn't;  and any and all parts of it may change 
randomly and without the kind of community discussion that lead to this 
version."

The document already indicated where the RFC Editor had final say over 
wording, and indicated that such wording was "initial values".  If the 
document needs to be clearer about what is, or is not changeable text, 
or the contexts in which further input is needed/not applicable, let's 
make it clearer in the appropriate places.

Page layouts were discussed considerably on this list, at least to the 
extent of determining which parts were headers and which were elsewhere 
in boilerplate (or, even, not in boilerplate).  While I certainly 
acknowledge that the RFC Editor should have the ability to adjust the 
series, it is important to indicate how the import of the opinions 
expressed in this discussion will be factored into future changes.


Without diving into the unparsability of the paragraph itself, I'll stop 
here and say that I do not believe it is constructive to the purpose of 
the document.  If the IAB member(s) who brought up the issue would care 
to be a little clearer about the actual issue, I'm sure we can help find 
a better solution, here.


Leslie.


Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> 
> FYI,
> 
> During our most recent IAB call it was suggested that a new paragraph is 
> introduced as the next-to-last paragraph of the Introduction (i.e., 
> after the one that starts "This memo identifies..." and before the one 
> that starts "The changes introduced...") that says:
> 
>     <t>Despite the apparent specificity of many of the
>     provisions of this document, final responsibility for
>     determining precise wording and placement of text, page
>     layouts, etc., remain with the RFC Editor as part of the
>     principle that it is responsible for specifying the
>     general style of the RFC Series.  Subject to general
>     oversight and review by the IAB, the only exception to
>     that principle is specific text that the Trustees of the
>     IETF Trust, on advice of Counsel, determine must have
>     specific wording or placement.  If such specific
>     requirements exist, the Trustees are responsible for
>     informing the RFC Editor, and notifying the community,
>     about them.</t>
> 
> 
> The intend of that paragraph is to allow the RFC Editor to make certain 
> decisions that fall within its purview of maintaining the look, feel, 
> and style of the document series. Although, IMHO, this is in the spirit 
> of the document, it is a substantive change that I want to make the 
> community aware off.
> 
> Version 08 will be submitted to the repository before the I-D cut-off 
> and that I-D will be submitted to the RFC editor mid next week.
> 
> --Olaf
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

-- 

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


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list