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

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Thu Mar 19 08:36:29 PDT 2009


I am reluctant to suggest a proposal, because I want the RFC Editor 
to have the flexibility to do the right thing.  However, I reject the 
assertion that the boilerplate cannot include a document-specific 
URL.  The URL would appear in RFCs, but not Internet-Drafts, which 
seems fin to me since the front matter of the two is already fairly different.

The Internet-Draft includes several topics that are inappropriate for 
RFCs, and vice versa.

Making a minor tweak to the example from Leslie's note.  The URL 
could easily be combined with the 2nd paragraph, dropping the 3rd 
paragraph altogether.

<BEGIN EXAMPLE>

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.
    The current status of this document and any errata to it may be
    found at http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfcYYYY.html

<END EXAMPLE>

I hope this adds clarity to my previous posting.

Russ

At 08:31 PM 3/18/2009, Leslie Daigle wrote:

>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.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list