housley at vigilsec.com
Thu Mar 19 08:36:29 PDT 2009
I am reluctant to suggest a proposal, because I want the RFC Editor
to have the flexibility to do the right thing. However, I reject the
assertion that the boilerplate cannot include a document-specific
URL. The URL would appear in RFCs, but not Internet-Drafts, which
seems fin to me since the front matter of the two is already fairly different.
The Internet-Draft includes several topics that are inappropriate for
RFCs, and vice versa.
Making a minor tweak to the example from Leslie's note. The URL
could easily be combined with the 2nd paragraph, dropping the 3rd
Status of this Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). 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. Further information on
the Internet Standards Track is available in Section 2 of RFC XXXX.
The current status of this document and any errata to it may be
found at http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfcYYYY.html
I hope this adds clarity to my previous posting.
At 08:31 PM 3/18/2009, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>In reviewing the issue Russ raises below, please recall the list
>discussion from late January that culminated in the following change to
>the document (I include the message with context so you can recapture
>As co-editor of this document, I have no issue whether we decide to
>stick with the current text (wherein boilerplate is static), or put in
>per-document URLs as Russ requests: I would like this list to provide
>guidance on how to reconcile the 2 competing requirements.
More information about the rfc-interest