[rfc-i] draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.txt

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Wed Mar 18 17:31:42 PDT 2009


Hi all,

In reviewing the issue Russ raises below, please recall the list 
discussion from late January that culminated in the following change to 
the document (I include the message with context so you can recapture 
state).

As co-editor of this document, I have no issue whether we decide to 
stick with the current text (wherein boilerplate is static), or put in 
per-document URLs as Russ requests:  I would like this list to provide 
guidance on how to reconcile the 2 competing requirements.

Thanks,
Leslie.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-06 : 
overlooked details?
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:25:19 -0500
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie at thinkingcat.com>
To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
CC: Olaf Kolkman <olaf at NLnetLabs.nl>
References: <200901231613.RAA05410 at TR-Sys.de> 
<4C7CC642-F13A-464A-9DE0-C4124CB2B9A6 at NLnetLabs.nl> 
<80ECC02A2293E6790322C17E at PST.JCK.COM> 
<p06240808c5a90740786d@[10.20.30.158]>	<49838874.2030204 at thinkingcat.com>


I'm drafting the revised text for the -07 version of the document.

Here's the text I have to address the concerns discussed a couple of
weeks ago:

3.2.3.  Paragraph 3

     The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant
     information can be found.  As boilerplate, this text should not be
     document-specific, although the material to which it refers may lead
     to document-specific information.  The exact wording is subject to
     change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text is:

     "Information about the current status of this document and any errata
     to it may be obtained at
     http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/<stream-id>.html"

     where <stream-id> is one of: "ietf", "iab", "irtf", "independent".


And, a worked example is:

Status of this Memo

      This is an Internet Standards Track document.

      This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
      (IETF).  It represents a consensus of the IETF community.  It has
      received public review and has been approved for publication by
      the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on
      the Internet Standards Track is available in Section 2 of RFC
      XXXX."

      Information about the current status of this document and any
      errata to it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/ietf.html



Formatting issues aside, does that seem about reasonable?


Leslie.



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.
 >
 >
 > 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

-- 



Russ Housley wrote:
> 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 
> desired here.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Russ
> on Behalf of the IESG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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