paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Mar 18 19:40:00 PDT 2009
At 8:31 PM -0400 3/18/09, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>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
That state wasn't clear because of the order of suggestions. The way I see the order is:
1) John suggested adding "Information about the current status of this document and any errata to it may be obtained at <URL>."
2) I said I thought that was a good idea.
3) You said "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." and gave some justification: "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."
None of this captures what Russ says he asked for (not on this mailing list), of a unique URL per RFC.
>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.
I think that John's suggestion (one URL for all RFCs) and your follow-up suggestion (one URL per stream) are still fine, and I also think that the IESG's request is fine as well. The IESG's suggestion makes it so that an IETF non-regular who picks up their first RFC finds all the information (stream explanation, pointer to errata, pointer to obsoleting RFCs) in one step; the earlier suggestion require two, although the second one is trivial.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
More information about the rfc-interest