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

Bob Hinden bob.hinden at nokia.com
Tue Dec 9 10:17:49 PST 2008

> But seriously, if a document says "This is the product of X" does
> it really also need to say "This is not the product of Y", for
> *any* values of X and Y?

That is my thought as well.

The document should say what it is, it does not have to say what it  
isn't.  For example, a standard approved by the IESG should be clearly  
labeled as an "IETF STANDARD".  It does not have to say this is not  
the output of the IRTF, IAB, or independent submission.   Likewise, an  
RFC approved by the the IAB does not have to say it isn't an IETF  
Stardard, or from the IRTF, etc.

When we write documents describing, for example, a file transfer  
protocol, we don't go to great lengths to say all the things it  
doesn't to.  I don't see why the boiler plate needs to be any different.

The problem of people outside of the IETF being confused by thinking  
that all RFCs are standards is not going to be fixed by anything we  
can write in an RFC.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list