RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 5741.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | IAB , Leslie Daigle , Olaf Kolkman | ||
| Last updated | 2013-03-02 (Latest revision 2009-04-23) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Architecture Board (IAB) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | IAB state | (None) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| IAB shepherd | (None) |
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08
Network Working Group L. Daigle, Ed.
Internet-Draft O. Kolkman, Ed.
Updates: 4844, 2223
(if approved) Internet Architecture Board
Intended status: Informational (IAB)
Expires: October 25, 2009 April 23, 2009
On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements.
This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect
current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular,
this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source
of RFC creation and review.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. The title page header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. The Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Paragraph 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.4. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates . . . 12
A.1. IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.2. IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.3. IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.4. IAB Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.5. IRTF Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix D. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
D.1. version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
D.2. version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D.3. version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D.4. version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D.5. version 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D.6. version 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D.7. version 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D.8. version 07->08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
1. Introduction
Previously RFCs (e.g. [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that
were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also
contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the
document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document
interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents.
As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been
increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to
make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it
describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as
part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs
that may have had a very different review and approval process.
Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving
text of "Notes" included in the published RFC.
With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844], it is
appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of
standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure
better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the
review and approval processes defined for each stream.
This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC
boilerplate structure, and provides a comprehensive approach to
updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC
document and content status. Most of the historical structure
information is collected from [RFC2223].
The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as
practically possible after the document has been approved for
publication.
2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards
Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet Standards-
related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet
Standards-related documents.
The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards
Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing
and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other
standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are
reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF
Stream.
Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security,
congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
protocols. They have also not been subject to approval by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide
last call. Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF
Stream documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any
purpose.
Refer to [RFC2026], [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis], and [RFC4844] and
their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC
streams.
3. RFC Structural Elements
3.1. The title page header
This section describes the elements that are commonly found in RFCs
published today. For the sake of clarity, this document specifies
the elements precisely as a specification. However, this is not
intended to specify a single, static format. Details of formatting
are decided by the RFC Editor. Substantive changes to the header and
boilerplate structure and content may be undertaken in the future,
and are subject to general oversight and review by the IAB.
An RFC title page header can be described as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<document source> <author name>
Request for Comments: <RFC number> [<author affiliation>]
[<subseries ID> <subseries number>] [more author info as appropriate]
[<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>]
Category: <category>
<month year>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Working Group T. Dierks
Request for Comments: 4346 Independent
Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla
Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc.
April 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
The right column contains author name and affiliation information as
well as the RFC publication month. Conventions and restrictions for
these elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual
stream definitions.
This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left
column:
<document source> This describes the area where the work originates.
Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group.
"Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's
IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and
whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got
together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols
[RFC0003]. Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working Group" in
order to indicate the originating stream.
The <document source> is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in
[RFC4844] and its successors. At the time of this publication,
the streams, and therefore the possible entries are:
* Internet Engineering Task Force
* Internet Architecture Board
* Internet Research Task Force
* Independent
Request for Comments: <RFC number> This indicates the RFC number,
assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This
element is unchanged.
<subseries ID> <subseries number> Some document categories are also
labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as
appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the
documents number within that series. Currently, there are
subseries for BCPs [RFC2026], STDs [RFC1311], and FYIs [RFC1150].
These subseries numbers may appear in several RFCs. For example,
when a new RFC obsoletes or updates an old one, the same subseries
number is used. Also, several RFCs may be assigned the same
subseries number: a single STD, for example, may be composed of
several RFCs, each of which will bear the same STD number. This
element is unchanged.
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
[<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>] Some relations between RFCs in the
series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new
RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two
relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223].
Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]).
Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor and
may appear in future RFCs.
Category: <category> This indicates the initial RFC document
category of the publication. These are defined in [RFC2026].
Currently, this is always one of: Standards Track, Best Current
Practice, Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element
is unchanged.
3.2. The Status of this Memo
The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC,
including the distribution statement. This text is included
irrespective of the source stream of the RFC.
The "Status of This Memo" will start with a single sentence
describing the status. It will also include a statement describing
the stream-specific review of the material (which is stream-
dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar as it
clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader an
understanding of how to consider its content.
3.2.1. Paragraph 1
The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a
single sentence, clearly standing out. It depends on the category of
the document.
For 'Standards Track' documents: "This is an Internet Standards
Track document."
For 'Best Current Practices' documents: "This memo documents an
Internet Best Current Practice."
For other categories "This document is not an Internet Standards
Track specification; <it is published for other purposes>."
For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of
RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for <it is
published for other purposes>. Initial values are:
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
Informational: "it is published for informational purposes."
Historic: "it is published for the historical record."
Experimental: "it is published for examination, experimental
implementation, and evaluation."
3.2.2. Paragraph 2
The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a
paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has
received. This is defined on a per-stream basis, subject to general
review and oversight by the RFC Editor and IAB. There is a specific
structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about review
processes and document types. These paragraphs will need to be
defined and maintained as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial
text, for current streams, is provided below.
The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial
document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or
Historic the second paragraph opens with:
Experimental: "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
the Internet community."
Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the
Internet community."
The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values
and may be updated by stream definition document updates.
IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF)."
If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an
additional sentence should be added: "It represents the consensus
of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been
approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
Group (IESG)." If there has not been such a consensus call then
this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed
valuable to provide for permanent record."
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
related research and development activities. These results might
not be suitable for deployment."
In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the
IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the
<insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual
opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)".
Independent Stream: "This is a contribution to the RFC Series,
independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen
to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement
about its value for implementation or deployment.
For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 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 Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
For IETF stream documents a similar reference is added: "Further
information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2
of RFC XXXX." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all
documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of
Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." for all other
categories.
3.2.3. Paragraph 3
The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant
information can be found. This information may include, subject to
the RFC Editor's discretion, information whether the RFC has been
updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a listing of possible errata,
information about how to provide feedback and suggestion, and
information on how to submit errata as described in
[I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. The exact wording and URL is
subject to change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text
is:
"Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/<static-path>/rfc<rfc-no>.html"
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
3.2.4. Noteworthy
Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate
the initial status of a document. During their lifetime documents
can change status to e.g. Historic. This cannot be reflected in the
document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered
to in Section 3.4.
3.3. Additional Notes
Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe
additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status
of This Memo".
While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal
of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear
to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly
exceptional.
3.4. Other structural information in RFCs
RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor
is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural
element. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted
using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or
may not require documentation in an RFC.
Currently the following structural information is available or is
being considered for inclusion in RFCs:
Copyright Notice A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78
[BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78
and BCP79 [BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined by
those BCPs.
ISSN The International Standard Serial Number [ISO3297]: ISSN 2070-
1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title
regardless of language or country in which it is published. The
ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique
identification of a serial publication.
4. Security considerations
This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an
RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause
interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems.
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
5. IANA considerations
None.
6. RFC Editor Considerations
The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the
RFC series. To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual
[RFC-style]. In this memo we mention a few explicit structural
elements that the RFC editor needs to maintain. The conventions for
the content and use of all current and future elements are to be
documented in the style manual.
Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one
method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated. The RFC
editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and
interfaces.
[The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards
editing this document and can be removed before publication]
The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be
removed before publication as an RFC. This one and Appendix D.
This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be
implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit
tracker and the rfc-erratum portal.
The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo.
References [RFC-style], [BCP78] and [BCP79] have been constructed.
Please bring these in line with RFC Editorial conventions.
In section Section 3.4: For the final publication, it should be
warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity.
The URL in Appendix A should be replaced with whatever the RFC Editor
decides upon.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
[I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis]
Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06 (work in progress),
November 2008.
7.2. Informative References
[ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and
documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and
description. , "Information and documentation -
International standard serial number (ISSN)" , 09 2007 .
[RFC0003] Crocker, S. , "Documentation conventions" , RFC 3 ,
April 1969 .
[RFC1311] Postel, J. , "Introduction to the STD Notes" , RFC 1311
, March 1992 .
[RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds , "FYI on FYI: Introduction
to the FYI Notes" , RFC 1150 , March 1990 .
[RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds , "Instructions to RFC
Authors" , RFC 2223 , October 1997 .
[RFC2629] Rose, M. , "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML" , RFC 2629
, June 1999 .
[RFC3979] Bradner, S. , "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology" , BCP 79 , RFC 3979 , March 2005 .
[RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board , "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor" , RFC 4844 , July 2007 .
[RFC4749] Sollaud, A. , "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio
Codec" , RFC 4749 , October 2006 .
[RFC5143] Malis, A. , Brayley, J. , Shirron, J. , Martini, L. ,
and S. Vogelsang , "Synchronous Optical Network/
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit
Emulation Service over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation" ,
RFC 5143 , February 2008 .
[RFC5378] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras , "Rights Contributors
Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 , RFC 5378 ,
November 2008 .
[I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
Ginoza, S. , Hagens, A. , and R. Braden , "RFC Editor
Proposal for Handling RFC Errata" ,
draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02 (work in progress) ,
May 2008 .
[BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed. , "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 ,
November 2008 .
At the moment of publication:[RFC5378]
[BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual
Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007.
At the moment of publication:[RFC3979]and[RFC4749]
[RFC-style]
RFC Editor, "RFC Style Guide",
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html>.
Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates
[Editor note: The URLs used in this example are examples.]
A.1. IETF Standards Track
The boilerplate for a Standards Track document that (by definition)
has been subject to an IETF consensus call.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
A.2. IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call
The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been subject to
an IETF consensus call.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Experimental purposes.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are
requested. 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
(IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for
any level of Internet Standards see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.3. IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call
The boilerplate for an Experimental document that not has been
subject to an IETF consensus call.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Experimental purposes.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group. Not all documents approved
by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet Standards see
Section 2 of RFC XXXX.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
A.4. IAB Informational
The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable
to provide for permanent record. Documents approved for
publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.5. IRTF Experimental
The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been produced
by the IRTF and for which there was no RG consensus. This variation
is the most verbose boilerplate in the current set.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Experimental purposes.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
related research and development activities. These results might
not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the individual
opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of
the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for
publication by the IRTF are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval
The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in
alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart
Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba,
Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave
Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex-
officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive
Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.
Appendix C. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza,
and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration.
Various people have made suggestions that improved the document.
Among them are: Lars Eggert, Alfred Hoenes, and Joe Touch.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
Appendix D. Document Editing Details
[To Be Removed before publication]
$Id: headers-boilerplates.xml 83 2009-04-23 06:35:05Z olaf $
D.1. version 00->01
Fixed the header so it appropriately shows that the document updates
RFC 4844, 2223. And added a link to 3932-bis that should appear in
tandem with this publication.
Introduced the "Other structural information in RFCs" section and
moved the ISSN number from the front matter to this section. The
"Other structural information in RFCs" intends to give very rough
guidance providing the RFC editor with sufficient freedom to move
pieces around and edit them to please the eye and mind.
Modified the last sentence 3rd paragraph of the Status of this memo
section for the IRTF Stream in accordance to a suggestion by Aaron
Falk; Indicating that review happened by the IRSG and not indicating
that review did not happen by the IESG.
Introduced the square brackets around the <author affiliation> in the
header. To highlight this is an optional element.
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
The definition of the "Clarifies" relation has been taken out. There
are arguments that introducing the relation needs a bit more thought
and is better done by a separate document.
Provided the RFC Editor with responsibility to maintain several text
pieces.
In Section 3.2 some modifications were applied to the text.
The <description> contains the full name of the stream.
RFC2223 and 4844 moved to the informative reference section.
Although I am not sure if those are not normative. Guidance!!!
D.2. version 01->02
Fixed some editorial nits and missing references.
Clarified that the status and category are initial.
Added boilerplate text for documents that are initially published as
Historic.
Added members of IAB, and removed those members from acknowledgements
Added References to BCP78 and BCP79. The exact formatting of those
references may need to be done by the RFC editor.
Added text to recognize occurrences of variations of "Obsolete" and
"Update"
D.3. version 02->03
Stray language in the "IAB members at time of approval" section
removed.
D.4. version 03->04
Addressed the minor nit from Brian Carpenter.
Reference to style guide stet to styleguide.html
D.5. version 04->05
References updated to reflect BCP78 being updated
Submitted under new boilerplate
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
Rewording of boilerplate material based on rfc-interest discussion
starting with http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/
2008-December/001078.html
Added examples in Appendix A
D.6. version 05->06
Nits corrected
Fixede Boilerplate for IETF stream document without IETF consensus.
Corruption of examples due to XML bug corrected
D.7. version 06->07
Nits corrected
Fixed inconsistency: Request for feedback only appeared in the
Experimental category, moved this to the "Update to this memo
section"
Changed the content of the 3rd paragraph of document status to be a
static (per stream) pointer to finding more information about the
document status, errata, and providing feedback. This was to address
the concern of having dynamic (per-document) text in the boilerplate,
if this "updates" section was document specific.
D.8. version 07->08
Introduced language to clarify that the RFC Editor is responsible for
details with respect to style and formatting.
Authors' Addresses
Leslie Daigle (editor)
Email: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com
Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)
Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates April 2009
Internet Architecture Board
Email: iab@iab.org
Daigle, et al. Expires October 25, 2009 [Page 18]