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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Fri Jan 16 08:57:11 PST 2009

Hash: SHA1

Russ Housley wrote:
> At 09:27 AM 1/16/2009, Thomas Narten wrote:
>> Maybe I'm losing track of things here, but...
>>> A.2.  IETF Experimental
>>>     The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been
>>> subject to an IETF consensus call
>> and
>>>     ...  It represents a consensus of the IETF
>>>      community.  It has received public review and has been approved
>>>      for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group.
>> Do all WG documents that are going for experimental now get last
>> called (and is this documented process, or just existing practice)?
>> I.e, what does the boilerplate look like for an IETF experimental
>> document that has not been last-called (if such documents can happen)?
>> Do we have a silly state in the system that is not covered in the
>> proposed boilerplate changes?
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/ad-sponsoring.html says:
> AD Sponsored documents to Standards Track require review in the IETF, 
> IETF Last Call, and IESG approval. AD Sponsored documents to 
> Experimental/Informational require some form of review in the IETF 
> and IESG approval. While RFC 2026 does not require the latter type of 
> documents to go through an IETF Last Call, this statement suggests 
> that it is always performed. It is needed to ensure adequate review 
> and transparency in a situation where the pending publication of the 
> document may not be known by any Working Group or the IETF community at large.
> But, since RFC 2026 does not require these Last Calls, the 
> boilerplate should probably not require them either.  It would be 
> nice if it matched what was actually done.

It would be much simpler not to give that sort of detail in the
boilerplate, since it could change.

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


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list