[rfc-i] Important: do not publish "draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08" as is!
ietf at augustcellars.com
Tue Nov 24 22:50:54 PST 2009
Let's just get this published and go with what we have even if it does not
necessarily read real pretty. The text of the strings can be updated at a
later point by a modification of the RFC Style Guide if there are enough
complaints about how the text looks. Given that it is boilerplate, I
personally don't care that it does not flow.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-
> bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:02 AM
> To: IETF discussion list; rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org; xml2rfc
> Subject: [rfc-i] Important: do not publish "draft-iab-streams-headers-
> boilerplates-08" as is!
> 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:
> >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-
> >> says:
> >> "Information about the current status of this document, any
> >> 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>,
> > requires the use of two new extension Processing Instructions to
> > the new boilerplate:
> > <?rfc-ext h-a-b="yes"?>
> > <?rfc-ext consensus="no"?>
> > (where the first enables the new format, while the second provides
> > 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
> > 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
> > Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group.
> > "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of
> > 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"
> > order to indicate the originating stream.
> > The <document source> is the name of the RFC stream, as defined
> > [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
> > series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a
> > RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two
> > relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes"
> > Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]).
> > Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor
> > 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
> > paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document
> > received. This is defined on a per-stream basis, subject to
> > review and oversight by the RFC Editor and IAB. There is a
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > (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
> > 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
> > <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
More information about the rfc-interest