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

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Mon Dec 8 12:44:32 PST 2008

Hi Jari,

I take your point about wanting to be able to visually distinguish 
Informationals that came out of a WG from Informationals that a random 
Internet community person (such as myself) might produce.

However, that is already accomplished with the headers for the IETF 
Stream document -- see below for an example -- IETF Stream 
Informationals say they are from that stream, and no others do.

The piece I am, therefore, still missing is:  how are you not simply 
asking for every non-IETF Stream document to say "this is not a product 
of the IETF Stream"?

And, if that is what you are asking for, does the Internet technical 
community at large agree that is needed/makes sense?



	This memo is not an Internet Standards Track specification,
	it is published for informational purposes.

	This memo provides information for the Internet community.
	This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

	This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF).

       If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an
       additional sentence should be added: "This document represents a
       consensus of the IETF community.  It has received public review
       and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering
       Steering Group."

Jari Arkko wrote:
> Leslie,
> I was kind of hoping no one would open that particular can of worms, 
> because we do know that the definition of IETF is fuzzy... ;-)
> However, that being said my opinion is the following.
> First off, it is important to remember that IETF WGs produce more than 
> just standards track RFCs. They often produce Informational and 
> Experimental RFCs as well. While they do not receive as much scrutiny as 
> standards track RFCs do, I still view an Inf document from an IETF WG 
> differently from one submitted directly to the RFC Editor. Part of my 
> problem with the current text is that the boilerplate for independent 
> submissions appears to distinguish itself only from the standards 
> process and not other outputs of the IETF.
> Secondly, while IRTF certainly is a part of the loose collection of 
> entities around the IETF, it has always been clear to me that it stands 
> for research whereas IETF stands for engineering. So I feel actually 
> pretty good about saying IRTF output is not IETF output and vice versa.
> Finally, I do not even hope to be able to answer the question of whether 
> the IAB is part of the IETF or outside it. This is why I did not ask for 
> any change with respect to that boilerplate text. I'm happy with the way 
> it is.
> So, in summary my opinion is that we only need one change: clarifying 
> the independent submissions from not just IETF standards work but also 
> from other IETF work.
> Jari


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

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list