[rfc-i] Committee for opposing more tedious boilerplate (was: errata maintenance)

John C Klensin john+rfc at jck.com
Tue Apr 13 15:49:50 PDT 2004

It is my understanding that the lawyers don't like this sort of 
idea, precisely because of the ease with which a web page can be 
changed out from under a document, resulting in conditions 
different from those under which the document was published. 
While the other three lines you list might work, the bulk of the 
boilerplate today is lawyer-associated or lawyer-induced, so the 
savings might not be great.


--On Tuesday, 13 April, 2004 16:34 -0600 Alex Rousskov 
<rousskov at measurement-factory.com> wrote:

> John,
> 	IMO, the logically correct action here is to limit the size of
> the boilerplate, NOT the amount of information! For example,
> here is a 6-line boilerplate that can be used to express
> everything in the current RFC boilerplate and everything you
> mentioned in your plea below:
> 	This document specifies an IETF _____ Standard. The
> 	following resources are incorporated here by reference:
> 	Legal:   http://rfc-editor.org/foo/bar/legal?v1.1
> 	Status:  http://rfc-editor.org/foo/bar/st?rfc1234
> 	Errata:  http://rfc-editor.org/foo/bar/err?rfc1234
> 	Help:    http://rfc-editor.org/foo/bar/help
> The text, labels, and URLs should be polished, but you get the
> idea...
> Alex.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list