[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Mon Dec 8 12:12:32 PST 2008

Maybe if I'm briefer, I will be clearer :-) (In-line)

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 1:45 PM -0500 12/8/08, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>> So, what is "the IETF"?  At different times, and for different purposes,
>> it refers either to the IETF standards process, or  a loose
>> confederation of organizations that play in this space.
>> To rationalize these texts so that they are all aligned, I would suggest:
>> 1/ The text in the IRTF Stream header ("It is not a product of the
>> IETF") is wrong.  At most, it should be "It is not a product of an IETF
>> WG or IESG approved activity".  Or, "It is not a product of the IETF
>> Standards Process".  Or, nothing (see below).
> "...of the IETF Standards Process" seems fine.

This will make the FOURTH time that is said in the header boilerplate, 
and I think that is excessive and unclear.

>> 2/ The text in the IAB Stream header should be aligned with the IRTF
>> text, as well.
> Yup.

And the IAB may wish to consider whether it agrees it is not part of the 
IETF, or its documents not part of the Standards process (might have 
implications re. appealability).

>> 3/ It should be clear(er) what is expected for any potential future RFC
>> Stream.
> Gaah, no. Unless we know what the "potential future" stream is, we can't guess how to help them.

The simplest thing, which should be answerable even absent knowledge of 
what future streams might be, is:

	Is this text to be included in all future streams, other than
	the IETF Stream  [yes/no]?


> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium


      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list