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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Dec 9 11:17:41 PST 2008

Hash: SHA1

I agree with Bob on this.

Stating a negative is never useful :-)


Bob Hinden wrote:
>> 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.
> Bob
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list