[rfc-i] Order of numbered and un-numbered sections in RFCs

Paul Hoffman / VPNC paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Sep 3 08:42:21 PDT 2004

At 9:31 AM +0300 9/3/04, Pekka Savola wrote:
>  > >3) the document doesn't appear to use many words to discuss the order
>>  >of the sections.  Is this useful?
>>  It would be useful if we could agree on them. :-)
>True enough ;-) -- but I think there's some rough consensus about this
>except from the location of appendices wrt references.
>The reason I say this is because sometimes folks put e.g.,
>Acknowledgements or Security Considerations in appendices (after the

(From draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt:)

    A published RFC may contain the sections in the following list.  Some
    of these sections are required, as noted.  The order shown is
    required, except that the order shown for the sub-items 7a-7f within
    Body of Memo is generally recommended but not required.

       1.  First-page header           [Required]
       2.  Status of this Memo         [Required*]
       3.  Copyright Notice            [Required*]
       4.  IESG Note                   [As requested by IESG*]
       5.  Abstract                    [Required]
       6.  Table of Contents           [Required for large documents]
       7.  Body of the Memo            [Required]
        7a.  Contributors
        7b.  Acknowledgments
        7c.  Security Considerations   [Required]
        7d.  IANA Considerations
        7e.  Appendixes
        7f.  References
       8. Author's Address             [Required]
       9. IPR Boilerplate              [Required*]

>rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt includes a pretty good order, though by
>default I'd change the order or references and appendices.

I have seen documents with the various parts of the "body" in 
different positions. Should we make hard-and-fast rules for future 
RFCs, or leave the body order floating?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list