[rfc-i] [IAB] Headers and Boilerplates is done.

Bob Hinden bob.hinden at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 16:23:22 PST 2009


Olaf,

A few more late comments.

It looks like it is missing an appendix with example "Status of the Memo" boilerplate for the Independent Stream.

Rereading Section 3.3.2, these seem very inconsistent to me.  Some say what they are, some say what they aren't.

The IAB Stream says it is a product of the IAB and is for the historical record.  I don't think that is an accurate description of IAB documents.  All RFCs are for the historical recored.  Many IAB RFC define or make architectural recommendations relating to the Internet architecture looking into the future.  There is even one that defines the new RFC editor model :-)  Perhaps, there is a bit more than just for the historical record.  "For the historical record" sounds like things we used to do.

The text about suitability for deployment and implementation is odd.  It implies that only the IETF stream is suitable for deployment, but the IETF stream does not say it is suitable for deployment.  Further in the warranty section of the TLP we say that we don't make any claims about suitably for anything, let alone deployment.   Also, the IRTF Steam says "results might not be suitable for deployment", while the Independent stream says "makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment".  Does that mean that the IRTF stream is OK to implement, but the Independent stream does not.

I think it would be better if the stream descriptions just said what they were and not what they might not be.  Since we make standards without any implementation or deployment experience, making negative statements about deployment for the other steams seems inconsistent with reality.

I recommend that all of these statements about deployment and implementation be removed.

I hope these comments don't come too late for consideration.

Bob








More information about the rfc-interest mailing list