[rfc-i] [IAB] Headers and Boilerplates is done.

John C Klensin john+rfc at jck.com
Thu Nov 19 11:40:04 PST 2009

--On Thursday, November 19, 2009 20:08 +0100 Olaf Kolkman
<olaf at NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:

> So, yes, I believe that the RFC Editor (RSE in the near
> future), has some latitude in making modifications to the
> specifics of the implementation and reflect that in the style
> manual. It is probably good to have such specifics subjected
> to community feedback. I believe we are all in sync on that.
> (correct?)

I am assuming that the RSE will request community feedback on
any substantive change to the Style Manual or its requirements.
I assume that "request community feedback" is not equivalent to
"change only with clear community consensus", if only because
everyone who reads and/or writes RFCs in English seems to have
an opinion about these matters and a requirement for consensus
would turn out to be a requirement to never change anything.

> Where I went to fast today was with assuming that the
> suggestion made by Bob B. (in his role of RFC editor) was
> non-substantive and my (personal) suggestion for the AUTH48
> change was just to make sure that the published RFC is at
> least a few microseconds in sync with the style manual.

I believe it is non-substantive.  If others disagree, there are
procedures for requesting review in the Model document and
elsewhere.   We should not hold up this document (and everything
that depends on it) getting every sentence polished to a state
of perfection.

>> p.s. the draft which we are discussing seems to have expired
>> in October and to have an obsolete list of IAB members.

> Yes, that was the set of IAB members that approved the doc. It
> should have been published if it were not for the MISREF. What
> frustrates me is that we seem to be opening a can of worms
> that I thought we had closed with a fairly good result.

I fear that this is the inevitable consequence of putting a
document aside for the better part of a year and then reopening
it.  People come back to it with new perspectives and little
memory of agreements reached earlier.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list