[rfc-i] draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-01 -- third paragraph

Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= ah at tr-sys.de
Thu Oct 9 13:13:58 PDT 2008

Hello all,
reading the new version, draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-01,
I stumbled over a few details that still could be improved.
All the editorials I found have already been passed off-list to the
document editors, but there is one interesting point I would like
to solicit comments on.

Section 3.2 of the draft discusses the 'facelifting' of the
"Status of this Memo" part of the RFC front page.
The final part (roughly one third) of that (long) section describes
the third paragraph to be inserted and proposes initial, stream-
dependent text for it.

My considerations regard the first case, for the IETF Stream.

Since the name of the Internet-Draft the RFC is based on is not
mentioned in the RFC, even the relationship to a particular WG of the
IETF is lost.  To better document the sub-stream and provide guidance
to the reader regarding the context of the document origin, I suggest
to differentiate between WG and Individual drafts in this place, and,
for the former sub-stream, denote the WG involved.
Presenting this 'high level contact information' might direct the
reader to a WG list for discussion, if appropriate, -- in particular
in the case author(s) get out of business or cannot be reached later
on via the email address(es) listed in the RFC.

To this end, I suggest to establish two variants, and replace the
single paragraph in the draft,

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


   IETF Stream, WG document:
     "This document is a product of the <xxx> Working Group of the
      Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)."

   IETF Stream, Individual submission:
     "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force

   where <xxx> is to be replaced by the official name of the WG,
   followed by its acronym in parentheses.

Note #1: The proposed text for the second sub-case is literally the
         original draft version.

Note #2: Alternatively, only the WG acronym could be used for <xxx>,
         or the acronym could be given first, with the long name in

Note #3: The draft already follows a similar idea for the IRTF
         stream -- see three paragraphs later in the draft.

Kind regards,


| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah at TR-Sys.de                     |

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list