[rfc-i] Comments on draft-iab-rfcformatreq-02
sm at resistor.net
Tue Feb 5 11:52:42 PST 2013
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
"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
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
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.
More information about the rfc-interest