[rfc-i] draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-06 : overlooked details?

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Sat Jan 31 04:22:07 PST 2009

On Jan 31, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:

> I think I like it a lot.  I'd like us to be a bit more crisp about  
> what "URL" might be -- specifically, that it is not an individual  
> URL per document, but at most one per stream.
> This is because I take some of the argument against the formulation  
> (in -06) as being document-specific and out of place in  
> boilerplate.  Almost anything a document would include by way of  
> document-specific pointers to "further discussion" etc is unlikely  
> to persist usefully over time. For example -- references to WGs will  
> become unuseful.
> By contrast -- pointers to RFC series websites should not.

So this can be fixed... would you be so kind?

What are your thoughts about Klensin's point 3.

Personally I think that this document is about the headers and  
boilerplates of RFCs. Not about Internet-Drafts. (Don;t think we have  
such crisp definitions for Internet-Drafts).

Also I think that there are a few things that the RFC Editor will need  
to be aware off to create the appropriate boilerplate, but I don;t  
think there is any wizzard science here.

Stream, category, and type of consensus (for IETF and IRTF streams)  
that is at first sight all that goes into the mix.

I am traveling and meeting for almost the whole month of February.  
Having fun... nah.. not right now.

-------------- 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/20090131/40f573da/PGP.bin

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list