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

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Thu Nov 19 11:08:04 PST 2009


On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> The first paragraph of Section 6 of the document now reads:
> 
> 	"The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the
> 	consistency of the RFC series.  To that end the RFC
> 	Editor maintains a style manual [RFC-style].  In this
> 	memo we mention a few explicit structural elements that
> 	the RFC editor needs to maintain.  The conventions for
> 	the content and use of all current and future elements
> 	are to be documented in the style manual."
> 
> I can read that as giving the RFC Editor precisely the
> flexibility that the discussion above anticipates.   I can also
> read it as "this stuff is absolutely fixed, the RFC Editor is
> instructed to copy it into the style manual, but can then make
> other changes as long as this text is not affected".   However
> it is resolved, that ambiguity is unacceptable: we need to be at
> least as clear here as we have been in RFC 4844 and 5620 about
> what the RFC Editor can and cannot do without a supporting,
> formally published, consensus document.


So, yes, I believe that the RFC Editor (RSE in the near future), has some latitude in making modifications to the specifics of the implementation and reflect that in the style manual. It is probably good to have such specifics subjected to community feedback. I believe we are all in sync on that. (correct?)

Where I went to fast today was with assuming that the suggestion made by Bob B. (in his role of RFC editor) was non-substantive and my (personal) suggestion for the AUTH48 change was just to make sure that the published RFC is at least a few microseconds in sync with the style manual.

> p.s. the draft which we are discussing seems to have expired in
> October and to have an obsolete list of IAB members.


Yes, that was the set of IAB members that approved the doc. It should have been published if it were not for the MISREF. What frustrates me is that we seem to be opening a can of worms that I thought we had closed with a fairly good result.

--Olaf


________________________________________________________ 

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                       Science Park 140, 
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list