[rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq-02

SM sm at resistor.net
Tue Feb 5 11:52:42 PST 2013


Hello,

I have a few comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq-02.  I understand 
that Heather and Nevil had a difficult task.  I'll file the comments 
in the tracker.

In the Abstract Section:

   "This document updates RFC 2223."

The IESG would raise the absence of "Updates:" as an issue if this 
draft was in the IETF Stream.  The RFC Editor would not publish the 
draft though if the "Updates:" was missing.  Id-nits flags the 
issue.  I would have expected a RSE and an ISE to pay attention to 
such details.

   "Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the"

The copyright year is incorrect.

In Section 1:

   "Over 40 years ago, the RFC Series began as a collection of memos in"

The Abstract Section uses "document" and the above uses "memos".

In Section 3.1:

   "*  The Boilerplate and overall structure of the RFC must be in
       accordance with current RFC and Style Guide requirements (see
       [RFC5741])."

What is "current"?

In Section 3.2:

   "*  The final conversion of all submitted documents to nroff should
       be replaced by using an accepted Revisable format throughout
       the process."

Will there be a discussion in future on this mailing list about this 
acceptable Revisable format or will it be treated as an implementation detail?

draft-iab-rfcformatreq-02 is intended to be published as a RFC.  I 
would have expected a rigorous memo.  I am okay with the current 
version of the memo as the path to consensus has been exhausting.

Regards,
-sm



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list