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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Mon Dec 8 12:52:56 PST 2008

Hash: SHA1

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.

It might be the case that these are sufficiently differentiated as:

	independent submissions - outside IETF process

	individual submissions - inside IETF process, but not a
		WG product

note that individual submissions, although not a WG deliverable, are a
WG and/or area 'product', i.e., they're the result of IETF process. So
Leslie's suggestion seems sufficient:

	of the IETF Standards Process


Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list