[rfc-i] Important: do not publish "draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08" as is!

RFC Editor rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
Tue Nov 24 17:07:34 PST 2009


Hi Julian,

I went through version -08 of the headers-boilerplates document and
attempted to put together all of the possible combinations of text for
the "Status of This Memo."   I believe the attached file is a complete
list of these possibilities, based on the text in Section 3.   

Please note that I have updated the URLs to match that of the existing
metadata pages that were created in response to this document
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX).  

The RFC Editor hopes that the IAB will agree to update the URLs
(throughout) and the text in Appendix A to reflect the appropriate
text from the corresponding Stream/Status/Consensus in the attached
file during the editing process.  

Please feel free to check the attached files, as manual error is
possible.

Hope this is of some help! Thanks!

Sandy


On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 02:01:56PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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, 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/samples/sample.ipr.rfc.hab.a2.test.xhtml>).
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> Julian Reschke wrote:
> > Julian Reschke wrote:
> >>
> >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08#section-3.2.3> 
> >> says:
> >>
> >>    "Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
> >>    and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
> >>    http://www.rfc-editor.org/<static-path>/rfc<rfc-no>.html"
> >>
> >> Can we please recommend *not* to put a file extension into the URL?
> >>
> >> BR, Julian
> >> ...
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 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
> >    http://www.rfc-editor.org/<static-path>/rfc<rfc-no>.html"
> > 
> > JRE: please do not bake a file extension into the permanent URL (see also
> > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg59415.html>)
> > 
> > -- snip --
> > 
> > Best regards, Julian
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
-------------- next part --------------
IETF
----

1. IETF Standards Track w/ consensus

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 the consensus of the IETF community.
   It has received public review and has been approved for publication
   by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further
   information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC
   XXXX.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

2. IETF Best Current Practice w/ consensus

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.
   It has received public review and has been approved for publication
   by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further
   information on BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC XXXX. 

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

3. IETF Experimental w/ consensus

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation. 

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF
   community.  It has received public review and has been approved for
   publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not
   all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of
   Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX. 

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

4. IETF Experimental w/o consensus

Status of This Memo

    This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
    is published for examination, experimental implementation, and
    evaluation. 

    This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
    community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF).  It has been approved for publication by the
    Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
    approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet
    Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX. 

    Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
    and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

5. IETF Historic w/ consensus

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for the historical record.

   This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet
   community.  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It
   has received public review and has been approved for publication by
   the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all
   documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of
   Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

6. IETF Historic w/o consensus

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for the historical record.

   This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet
   community.  It has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all
   documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of
   Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

7. IETF Informational w/ consensus

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet
   Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX. 

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

8. IETF Informational w/o consensus

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It has been approved for publication by the Internet
   Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents approved by
   the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet Standards; see
   Section 2 of RFC XXXX. 

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.


IAB
---

9. IAB Historic

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for the historical record.

   This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Architecture
   Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed
   valuable to provide for permanent record.  Documents approved for
   publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

10. IAB Informational

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board
   (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable
   to provide for permanent record.  Documents approved for
   publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.


IRTF (*specific RG name needs to be filled in)
----

11. IRTF Experimental w/ RG consensus*

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation. 

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Research
   Task Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
   related research and development activities.  These results might 
   not be suitable for deployment.  This RFC represents the consensus
   of the <insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task
   Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are
   not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2
   of RFC XXXX. 

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

12. IRTF Experimental w/o RG consensus*

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation.

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Research
   Task Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
   related research and development activities.  These results might 
   not be suitable for deployment.  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).  Documents
   approved for publication by the IRSG are not a candidate for any
   level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

13. IRTF Historic w/ RG consensus*

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for the historical record.

   This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet
   community. This document is a product of the Internet Research Task
   Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related
   research and development activities.  These results might
   not be suitable for deployment.  This RFC represents the consensus
   of the <insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task
   Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are
   not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2
   of RFC XXXX. 

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

14. IRTF Historic w/o RG consensus*

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for the historical record.

   This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Research
   Task Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of
   Internet-related research and development activities.  These
   results might not be suitable for deployment.  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).  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are
   not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2
   of RFC XXXX.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

15. IRTF Informational w/ RG consensus*

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for informational purposes. 

   This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related
   research and development activities.  These results might
   not be suitable for deployment.  This RFC represents the consensus
   of the <insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task
   Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are
   not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2
   of RFC XXXX. 

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

16. IRTF Informational w/o RG consensus*

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for informational purposes. 

   This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related
   research and development activities.  These results might
   not be suitable for deployment.  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).  Not all
   documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of
   Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.


INDEPENDENT
-----------

17. Independent Submission Experimental

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation. 

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently
   of any other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this
   document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value
   for implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for
   publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

18. Independent Submisson Historic

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for the historical record.

   This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet
   community.  This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently
   of any other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this
   document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value
   for implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for
   publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.

19. Independent Submission Informational

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
   is published for informational purposes.

   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any
   other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this
   document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value
   for implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for
   publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list