[rfc-i] Comments on draft-flanagan-style-03

Dave Thaler dthaler at microsoft.com
Wed Feb 5 12:18:42 PST 2014


Some comments...

BCP18 (RFC2277, "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages") section 6 says:
> In documents that deal with internationalization issues at all, a 
> synopsis of the approaches chosen for internationalization SHOULD 
> be collected into a section called "Internationalization 
> considerations", and placed next to the Security Considerations 
> section.

However, the structure summary in section 4 is missing this, and 
begs the question of whether "next to" means "before" or "after", 
and in checking various RFCs the answer has not been consistent 
(e.g., after in RFC 5256 and 6596 and before in RFC 4993 and 5179).

Section 4.8 has subsections for IANA Considerations and Security
Considerations.   I think the doc would benefit from having another subsection
somewhere that mentions other common sections that may be required
in specific types of documents, so it can reference where you can find more info
on them for instance.

E.g., reference [RFC2277] section 6 for "Internationalization Considerations", 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-boilerplate has a 
required "The Internet-Standard Management Framework" section for MIBs,
etc.

Also Section 4.8.4 only points to [BCP72] for more info on security
considerations.  However, MIBs have specific required boilerplate specified at 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security>
and that is not referenced within [BCP72] and so the existence of MIB-specific
boilerplate should probably be mentioned here.  Similarly YANG modules
also have security boilerplate (see
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/yang-security-guidelines>).

-Dave


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list