housley at vigilsec.com
Wed Mar 18 09:17:20 PDT 2009
RE: 3.2.3. Paragraph 3
Apparently I missed a shift in the
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates document. Many months ago,
the IESG asked for an RFC-specific URL to be placed in each RFC. We
do not care if it is part of the front matter or part of the back
matter; however, the RFC-specific web page is expected to provide
information about the actual RFC, not the stream. The material of
interest is similar to that offered on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX. In particular, the IESG expected
the web page to answer these questions (and perhaps others):
- Has this RFC been obsoleted? If so, by which RFC(s)?
- Has this RFC been updated? If so, by which RFC(s)?
- Are there errata against this RFC? If so, provide a link to them.
This text is unclear if feedback is intended to be a pointer to a
mail list or a pointer to errata submission. I'm not sure what is
Personally, I do not care if the URL to the RFC Editor status web
page is on the front or in the back of the document.
on Behalf of the IESG
More information about the rfc-interest