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

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Tue Jan 13 15:29:52 PST 2009


I read your other suggestions, but would like to stick to where we  
converged too...  a fragile balance.

However, you observed:
> ++ note that the IETF documents are missing a phrase that refers to
> section 2 of RFCXXXX.

I can sympathize to the argument for symmetry... and I can come up  
with wording.

So to the current paragraph:
      For non-IETF stream documents a reference to <xref
      target="standards"/> of this RFC is added with the following
      sentence: "Documents approved for publication by the [stream
      approver -- currently, one of: "IAB", "IRSG", or "RFC
      Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of Internet
      Standard; see <xref target="standards"/> of RFCXXXX."
I propose to add:
      For IETF stream documents a reference is added:
      Not all documents approved for publication by the IETF are
      candidate for any level of Internet Standards see
      <xref target="standards"/> of RFCXXXX."

One of the benefits of adding this text is that it would also address  
the problem that the IETF has that people do mistake Experimentals and  
Informationals as having the weight of standards.


Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                        Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

NB: The street at which our offices are located has been
renamed to the above.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090114/baa86437/PGP.bin

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list