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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Jan 8 09:23:50 PST 2009

Hash: SHA1

Hi, Jari,

Jari Arkko wrote:
> Our debate is fundamentally about to what extent the boilerplate needs 
> to be explicit. In particular:
> 1) Does the boilerplate explain the situation, refer to another RFC for 
> the explanation, or just state the name of the stream and leave it at that?

If we can refer to other RFCs for legal issues, it seems appropriate and
sufficient to refer to other RFCs to explain this situation.

> 2) Does the boilerplate explicitly call out that non stds track 
> documents are not standards?

This seems necessary.

> 3) Does the boilerplate explicitly note that non-IETF documents are not 
> the product of the IETF?

#2 already explains the key issue - whether a document is standards-track.

It may be useful to explain when a document IS the product of the IETF,
IRTF, or IAB. It is not useful to state the converse, though,  e.g.,
this is not useful:

	This document is a product of the IETF. It is not a product
	of the IRTF. It is not a product of the IAB.

These statements are (mutually exclusively) useful, however:

	This document is an independent submission.

	This document is a product of the IETF.

	This document is a product of the IRTF.

	This document is a product of the IAB.

Stating what a document IS is sufficient. Stating what it is NOT is what
causes the concern, via the implication that being NOT from the IETF is
some sort of stamp of "unchecked".

So can we just state what documents are, not what they're not, and move on?

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


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list