[rfc-i] Important: do not publish "draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08" as is!
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Nov 24 05:01:56 PST 2009
I just created five test cases representing the appendices A.1 to A.5.
Turns out that the text in the examples is not in sync with the
definitions in Section 3 (see, for instance,
Best regards, Julian
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> "Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
>> and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
>> Can we please recommend *not* to put a file extension into the URL?
>> BR, Julian
> in the meantime I have finished a prototype implementation of the new
> boilerplate in rfc2629.xslt (*not* xml2rfc!). The implementation is
> available from <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt.zip>, and
> requires the use of two new extension Processing Instructions to enable
> the new boilerplate:
> <?rfc-ext h-a-b="yes"?>
> <?rfc-ext consensus="no"?>
> (where the first enables the new format, while the second provides the
> information about whether there was consensus, something the current
> xml2rfc format doesn't provide).
> I haven't found any problems in addition to what was reported before,
> except for a trailing dot in one of the boilerplate statements, and
> cases of repeating sentence beginnings -- maybe all of this can be fixed
> during AUTH48 (although I'd prefer to see this in a new draft for
> community review).
> For the record, here's a complete summary:
> -- snip --
> 3.1. The title page header
> <document source> This describes the area where the work originates.
> Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group.
> "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's
> IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and
> whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got
> together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols
> [RFC0003]. Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working Group" in
> order to indicate the originating stream.
> The <document source> is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in
> [RFC4844] and its successors. At the time of this publication,
> the streams, and therefore the possible entries are:
> * Internet Engineering Task Force
> * Internet Architecture Board
> * Internet Research Task Force
> * Independent
> JRE: as discussed earlier: should this be "Independent Submission"
> instead of "Independent"?
> [<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>] Some relations between RFCs in the
> series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new
> RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two
> relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223].
> Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]).
> Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor and
> may appear in future RFCs.
> JRE: "Obsoleted By" is not a variant of "Obsoletes" or "Updates".
> 3.2.2. Paragraph 2
> The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a
> paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has
> received. This is defined on a per-stream basis, subject to general
> review and oversight by the RFC Editor and IAB. There is a specific
> structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about review
> processes and document types. These paragraphs will need to be
> defined and maintained as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial
> text, for current streams, is provided below.
> The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial
> document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or
> Historic the second paragraph opens with:
> Experimental: "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
> the Internet community."
> Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the
> Internet community."
> JRE: the way paragraph 2 is generated, we end up with instances where
> the 1st and 2nd sentence both start with "This document". This is ugly.
> Is it too late to fix this?
> In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the
> IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the
> <insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
> (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual
> opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
> Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)".
> JRE: trailing dot missing in 2nd variant.
> 3.2.3. Paragraph 3
> "Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
> and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
> JRE: please do not bake a file extension into the permanent URL (see also
> -- snip --
> Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest