Skip to main content

RFC Style Guide

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 7322.
Authors RFC Editor , Heather Flanagan
Last updated 2017-08-03 (Latest revision 2014-04-09)
Replaces draft-flanagan-style
RFC stream Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
Intended RFC status Informational
Stream IAB state Published RFC
Consensus boilerplate Yes
IAB shepherd (None)
INTERNET-DRAFT                                               H. Flanagan
                                                              RFC Editor
Intended Status: Informational                                 S. Ginoza
Expires: October 11, 2014                                     RFC Editor
                                                           April 9, 2014

                            RFC Style Guide 


   This document describes the fundamental and unique style conventions
   and editorial policies currently in use for the RFC Series.  It
   captures the RFC Editor's basic requirements and offers guidance
   regarding the style and structure of an RFC.  Additional guidance is
   captured on a website that reflects the experimental nature of that
   guidance and prepares it for future inclusion in the RFC Style guide.

   Guidance provided by this document will not be applied until
   published as an RFC.  Please send your comments about the contents of
   this document to <>. 

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 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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved. 

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014                [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   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. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License. 

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  RFC Editorial Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  RFC Style Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Punctuation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  DNS Names and URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Capitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.5.  Citations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.6.  Abbreviation Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Structure of an RFC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  First-Page Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1.1.  Author/Editor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1.2.  Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.3.  "ISSN: 2070-1721"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.4.  Updates and Obsoletes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.2.  Full Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.3.  Abstract Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.4.  RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.5.  Status of This Memo Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.6.  Copyright, Licenses, and IPR Boilerplate Section . . . . . 12
     4.7.  Table of Contents Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.8.  Body of the Memo Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.8.1.  Introduction Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.8.2.  Requirement Words Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.8.3.  IANA Considerations Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.8.4.  Internationalization Considerations Section  . . . . . 14
       4.8.5.  Security Considerations Section  . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.8.6.  References Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14  URIs in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15  Referencing RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15  Referencing STDs and BCPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . 16  Referencing Internet-Drafts  . . . . . . . . . . . 17  Referencing Errata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18  Referencing Other Standards Development 
                   Organizations (SDOs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.9.  Appendices Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014                [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

     4.10.  Acknowledgments Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     4.11.  Contributors Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     4.12.  "Author's Address" or "Authors' Addresses" Section  . . . 20
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Appendix A.  Related Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     A.1.  Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     A.2.  Returning an I-D to the Document Stream  . . . . . . . . . 24
     A.3.  Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages  . . . . . 24
   Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014                [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

1.  Introduction

   The ultimate goal of the RFC publication process is to produce
   documents that are readable, clear, consistent, and reasonably
   uniform.  The basic format conventions for RFCs were established in
   the 1970s by the original RFC Editor, Jon Postel.   This document
   describes the fundamental and unique style conventions and editorial
   policies currently in use for the RFC Series [RFC4844].  It is
   intended as a stable, infrequently updated reference for authors,
   editors, and reviewers. 

   The RFC Editor also maintains a web portion of the Style Guide (see
   Appendix A) that describes issues as they are raised and indicates
   how the RFC Editor intends to address them.  As new style issues
   arise, the RFC Editor will first address them on the web portion of
   the Style Guide [StyleWeb].  These may become part of the RFC Style
   Guide when it is revised. 

   The world of technical publishing has generally accepted rules for
   grammar, punctuation, capitalization, sentence length and complexity,
   parallelism, etc. The RFC Editor generally follows these accepted
   rules as defined by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) [CMOS], with a
   few important exceptions to avoid ambiguity in complex technical
   prose and to handle mixtures of text and computer languages.  This
   document presents these exceptions as applied or recommended by the
   RFC Editor.  

   All RFCs begin as Internet-Drafts, and a well-written and properly
   constructed Internet-Draft [ID-GUIDE] provides a strong basis for a
   good RFC. The RFC Editor accepts Internet-Drafts from specified
   streams for publication [RFC4844] and applies the rules and
   guidelines for the RFC Series during the editorial process. 

2.  RFC Editorial Philosophy

   Authors may find it helpful to understand the RFC Editor's goals
   during the publication process, namely: 

   -  Prepare the document according to RFC style and format.

   -  Make the document as clear, consistent, and readable as possible.

   -  Correct larger content/clarity issues; flag any unclear passages
      for author review. 

   -  Fix inconsistencies (e.g., terms that appear in various forms,
      text that appears multiple times, or inconsistent

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014                [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   We strive for consistency within:

         a. the document,

         b. a cluster of documents [CLUSTER], and

         c. the series of RFCs on the subject matter.

   The editorial process of the RFC Editor is not an additional
   technical review of the document.  Where the RFC Editor may suggest
   changes in wording for clarity and readability, it is up to the
   author, working group, or stream approving body to determine whether
   the changes have an impact on the technical meaning of the document
   [RFC4844].  If the original wording is a more accurate representation
   of the technical content being described in the document, it takes
   precedence over editorial conventions. 

   The activity of editing often creates a tension between author and
   editor. The RFC Editor attempts to minimize this conflict for RFC
   publication, while continually striving to produce a uniformly
   excellent document series.  The RFC Editor refers to this fundamental
   tension as "editorial balance", and maintaining this balance is a
   continuing concern for the RFC Editor.  There is a prime directive
   that must rule over grammatical conventions: do not change the
   intended meaning of the text.   

   If a document is submitted to the RFC Editor that proves to be
   uneditable due to consistently unclear and poorly written text, the
   document may be returned to the stream for revision.  See more
   details in Appendix A.2. 

3.  RFC Style Conventions

   This Style guide does not use RFC 2119 terminology.  Terms such as
   lowercase "must" and "should" refer to guidance that the RFC Editor
   will either apply automatically ("must") or query the authors if the
   authors have not followed that guidance ("should").

3.1.  Language

   The RFC publication language is English.  This may be either American
   or British as long as an individual document is internally
   consistent.  Where both American and British English are used within
   a document or cluster of documents, the text will be modified to be
   consistent with American English. 

3.2.  Punctuation 


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014                [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   *  No overstriking (or underlining) is allowed.

   *  When a sentence ended by a period is immediately followed by
      another sentence, there must be two blank spaces after the period.

   *  A comma is used before the last item of a series, e.g., 

         "TCP service is reliable, ordered, and full-duplex"

   *  When quoting literal text, punctuation is placed outside quotation
      marks, e.g., 

         'Search for the string "Error Found"'.

      When quoting general text, such as general text from another RFC,
      punctuation may be included within the quotation marks, e.g., 

         RFC 4844 indicates that "RFCs are available free of charge to
         anyone via the Internet." 

      Quotes are not necessary when block quotes are used.

3.3.  DNS Names and URIs

      DNS names, whether or not in URIs, that are used as generic
      examples in RFCs should use the particular examples defined in
      "Reserved Top-Level DNS Names" [RFC2606], to avoid accidental

      Angle brackets are strongly recommended around URIs [STD66], e.g.,


3.4.  Capitalization 

   *  Capitalization must be consistent within the document and ideally
      should be consistent with related RFCs.  Refer to the online
      "Table of decisions on consistent usage of terms in RFCs" [PUB-

   *  Per CMOS guidelines, the major words in RFC titles and section
      titles should be capitalized (this is sometimes called "title
      case").  Typically, all words in a title will be capitalized,
      except for internal articles, prepositions, and conjunctions.  


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014                [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   *  Section titles that are in sentence form will follow typical 
      sentence capitalization. 

   *  Titles of figures may be in sentence form or use title case.

3.5.  Citations 

   *  References and citations must match.  That is, there must be a
      reference for each citation used, and vice versa. 

   *  Citations must be enclosed in square brackets, e.g., "[CITE1]".

   *  A citation/reference tag must not contain spaces or hyphens.

         Example: "[RFC2119]", not "[RFC 2119]".

      However, the proper textual naming of an RFC contains a space.

         Example: "See RFC 2119 [BCP14] for more information."

   *  Cross-references within the body of the text and to other RFCs
      must use section numbers rather than page numbers, as pagination
      may change per format and device.

3.6.  Abbreviation Rules

   Abbreviations should be expanded in document titles and upon first
   use in the document.  The full expansion of the text should be
   followed by the abbreviation itself in parentheses.   The exception
   is abbreviations that are so common that the readership of RFCs can
   be expected to recognize them immediately; examples include (but are
   not limited to) TCP, IP, SNMP, and HTTP.  The online list of
   abbreviations [ABBR] provides guidance.  Some cases are marginal, and
   the RFC Editor will make the final judgment, weighing obscurity
   against complexity.

      Note: The online list of abbreviations is not exhaustive or
      definitive.  It is a list of abbreviations appearing in RFCs and
      sometimes reflects discussions with authors, Work Group (WG)
      chairs, and/or Area Directors (ADs).  Note that some abbreviations
      have multiple expansions.  Additionally, this list includes some
      terms that look like abbreviations but are actually fixed names
      for things, and hence cannot and should not be expanded.  These
      are noted as "No expansion".

4.  Structure of an RFC

   A published RFC will contain the elements in the following list. 

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014                [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   Some of these sections are required, as noted.  Those sections marked
   with "*" will be supplied by the RFC Editor during the editorial
   process when necessary.  Sections are allowed to contain nothing but
   subsections.   The rules for each of these elements are described in
   more detail below.   


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014                [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

      First-page header                      * [Required]
      Title                                    [Required]
      Abstract                                 [Required]
      RFC Editor or Stream Note              * [Upon request]
      Status of this Memo                    * [Required]
      Copyright and License Notice           * [Required]
      Table of Contents                        [Required]
      Body of the Memo                         [Required]
        1.  Introduction                       [Required]
        2.  Requirement Words (RFC 2119)
        3.  ...
        6.  ...
        7.  IANA Considerations                [Required in I-D]
        8.  Internationalization Considerations
        9.  Security Considerations            [Required]
        10.  References  
        10.1.  Normative References
        10.2.  Informative References
        Appendix A.
        Appendix B.
      Author's Address                         [Required]

   Within the body of the memo, the order shown above is strongly
   recommended. Exceptions will be questioned.  Outside the body of the
   memo, the order above is required.  The section numbers above are for
   illustrative purposes; they are not intended to correspond to
   required numbering in an RFC. 

   The elements preceding the body of the memo should not be numbered.
   Typically, the body of the memo will have numbered sections and the
   appendices will be labeled with letters. Any sections that appear
   after the appendices should not be numbered or labeled (e.g., see
   "Contributors" above). 

4.1.  First-Page Header

   Headers will follow the format as described in "RFC Streams, Headers,
   and Boilerplates" [RFC5741] and its successors.  In addition, the
   following conventions will apply. 

4.1.1.  Author/Editor

   The determination of who should be listed as an author or editor on
   an RFC is made by the stream. 


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014                [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   The author's name (initials followed by family name) appears on the
   first line of the heading.  Some variation, such as additional
   initials or capitalization of family name, is acceptable but the
   author should be consistent once they've selected a name format.  

   The total number of authors or editors on the first page is generally
   limited to five individuals and their affiliations.  If there is a
   request for more than five authors, the stream approving body needs
   to consider if one or two editors should have primary responsibility
   for this document, with the other individuals listed in the
   Contributors or Acknowledgements sections.  There must be a direct
   correlation of authors and editors in the header and Author's Address
   section.  These are the individuals that must sign off on the
   document during the AUTH48 process and respond to inquiries, such as

4.1.2.  Organization

   The author's organization is indicated on the line following the
   author's name. 

   For multiple authors, each author name appears on its own line,
   followed by that author's organization.  When more than one author is
   affiliated with the same organization, the organization can be
   "factored out", appearing only once following the corresponding
   Author lines.  However, such factoring is inappropriate when it would
   force an unacceptable reordering of author names. 

   If an author cannot or will not provide an affiliation for any
   reason, "Independent", "Individual Contributor", "Retired", or some
   other term that appropriately describes the author's affiliation may
   be used.   Alternatively, a blank line may be included in the
   document header when no affiliation is provided. 

4.1.3.  "ISSN: 2070-1721"

   The RFC Series has been assigned an International Standard Serial
   Number of 2070-1721 [ISO3297].  It will be included by the RFC

4.1.4.  Updates and Obsoletes

   When an RFC obsoletes or updates a previously published RFC or RFCs,
   this information is in the header.  For example: 

         "Updates: nnnn" or "Updates: nnnn, ..., nnnn"

         "Obsoletes: nnnn" or "Obsoletes: nnnn, ... , nnnn"

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   If the document updates or obsoletes more than one document, numbers
   will be listed in ascending order. 

4.2.  Full Title

   The title must be centered below the rest of the heading, preceded by
   two blank lines and followed by one blank line. 

   Choosing a good title for an RFC can be a challenge.  A good title
   should fairly represent the scope and purpose of the document without
   being either too general or too specific and lengthy. 

   Abbreviations or acronyms in a title must generally be expanded when
   first encountered (see Section 3.5 for additional guidance on

   It is often helpful to follow the expansion with the parenthesized
   abbreviation, as in the following example: 

                         Encoding Rules for the
        Common Routing Encapsulation Extension Protocol (CREEP)

   The RFC Editor recommends that documents a particular company's
   private protocol should bear a title of the form "Foo's ... Protocol"
   (where Foo is a company name), to clearly differentiate it from a
   protocol of more general applicability. 

4.3.  Abstract Section

   Every RFC must have an Abstract that provides a concise and
   comprehensive overview of the purpose and contents of the entire
   document, to give a technically knowledgeable reader a general
   overview of the function of the document. 

   Composing a useful Abstract generally requires thought and care.
   Usually an Abstract should begin with a phrase like "This memo ..."
   or "This document ...".  A satisfactory Abstract can often be
   constructed in part from material within the Introduction section,
   but an effective Abstract may be shorter, less detailed, and perhaps
   broader in scope than the Introduction.  Simply copying and pasting
   the first few paragraphs of the Introduction is allowed, but it may
   result in an Abstract that is both incomplete and redundant.  Note
   also that an Abstract is not a substitute for an Introduction; the
   RFC should be self-contained as if there were no Abstract. 

   Similarly, the Abstract should be complete in itself.  It will appear
   in isolation in publication announcements and in the online index of
   RFCs.  Therefore, the Abstract must not contain citations. 

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

4.4.  RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section

   At times, the stream approving body may approve inclusion of an
   editorial note to explain anything unusual about the process that led
   to the document's publication or to note a correction.  In this case,
   a Stream Note section will contain such a note.

   Additionally, an RFC Editor Note section may contain a note inserted
   by the RFC Editor to highlight special circumstances surrounding an

4.5.  Status of This Memo Section

   The RFC Editor will supply an appropriate "Status of This Memo" as
   defined in RFC 5741 [RFC5741]. 

4.6.  Copyright, Licenses, and IPR Boilerplate Section

   The full copyright and license notices are available on the IETF
   Trust Legal Provisions Documents website [IETF-TRUST]. 

4.7.  Table of Contents Section

   A Table of Contents (TOC) is required in all RFCs.  It must be
   positioned after the Copyright notice and before the Introduction. 

4.8.  Body of the Memo Section

   Following the TOC is the body of the memo. 

   Each RFC must include an "Introduction" section that (among other
   things) explains the motivation for the RFC and (if appropriate)
   describes the applicability of the document, e.g., whether it
   specifies a protocol, provides a discussion of some problem, is
   simply of interest to the Internet community, or provides a status
   report on some activity.  The body of the memo and the Abstract must
   be self-contained and separable.  This may result in some duplication
   of text between the Abstract and the Introduction; this is

4.8.1.  Introduction Section

   The Introduction section should always be the first section following
   the TOC (except in the case of MIB module documents).  While
   "Introduction" is recommended, authors may choose alternate titles
   such as "Overview" or "Background".  These alternates are acceptable.

   For MIB module documents, common practice has been for "The Internet-

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   Standard Management Framework" [MIB-BOILER] text to appear as Section

4.8.2.  Requirement Words Section

   Some documents use certain capitalized words ("MUST", "SHOULD", etc.)
   to specify precise requirement levels for technical features. RFC
   2119 [BCP14] defines a default interpretation of these capitalized
   words in IETF documents.  If this interpretation is used, RFC 2119
   must be cited (as specified in RFC 2119) and included as a normative
   reference.  Otherwise, the correct interpretation must be specified
   in the document. 

   This section must appear as part of the body of the text (as defined
   by this document).  It must appear as part of, or subsequent to, the
   Introduction section. 

   These words are considered part of the technical content of the
   document and are intended to provide guidance to implementers about
   specific technical features, generally governed by considerations of
   interoperability.  RFC 2119 says: 

         Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with
         care and sparingly.  In particular, they must only be used
         where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit
         behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting
         retransmissions).  For example, they must not be used to try to
         impose a particular method on implementers where the method is
         not required for interoperability. 

4.8.3.  IANA Considerations Section

   See "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"

   The RFC Editor will update text accordingly after the IANA
   assignments have been made.  It is helpful for authors to clearly
   identify where text should be updated to reflect the newly assigned
   values.  For example, the use of "TBD1", "TBD2", etc., is recommended
   in the IANA Considerations section and in the body of the document.

   If the authors have provided values to be assigned by IANA, the RFC
   Editor will verify that the values inserted by the authors match
   those that have actually been registered on the IANA site.  When
   writing a given value, consistent use of decimal or hexadecimal is


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   If any of the IANA-related information is not clear, the RFC Editor
   will work with IANA to send queries to the authors to ensure that
   assignments and values are properly inserted. 

   The RFC Editor will remove an IANA Considerations section that says
   there are no IANA considerations (although such a section is required
   in the Internet-Draft preceding the RFC). 

4.8.4.  Internationalization Considerations Section

   All RFCs that deal with internationalization issues should have a
   section describing those issues; see "IETF Policy on Character Sets
   and Languages" [BCP18], Section 6, for more information.

4.8.5.  Security Considerations Section

   All RFCs must contain a section that discusses the security
   considerations relevant to the specification; see "Guidelines for
   Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations" [BCP72] for more

   Note that additional boilerplate for RFCs containing MIB and YANG
   modules also exists.  See "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules"
   [MIB-SEC] and "yang module security considerations" [YANG-SEC] for

4.8.6.  References Section

   The reference list is solely for recording reference entries. 
   Introductory text is not allowed.

   The RFC style allows the use of any of a variety of reference styles,
   as long as they are used consistently within a document.  However,
   where necessary, in specific instances, some reference styles have
   been described for use within the Series.  See the examples in this

   The RFC Editor ensures that references to other RFCs refer to the
   most current RFC available on that topic (unless provided with reason
   not to do so).  When referring to an obsoleted document, it is common
   practice to also refer to the most recent version as well.

   A reference to an RFC that has been assigned an STD [RFC1311], BCP
   [RFC1818], or FYI [FYI90] sub-series number must include the sub-
   series number of the document.  Note that the FYI series was ended by
   RFC 6360.  RFCs that were published with an FYI sub-series number and
   still maintain the FYI number must include the sub-series number in
   the reference.   

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   Reference lists must indicate whether each reference is normative or
   informative, where normative references are essential to implementing
   or understanding the content of the RFC, and informative references
   provide additional information.   When both normative and informative
   references exist, the references section should be split into two

      s.  References

      s.1.  Normative References


      s.2.  Informative References


   References will generally appear in alphanumeric order by citation
   tag.  Where there are only normative or informative references, no
   subsection is required; the top level section should say "Normative
   References" or "Informative References".

   Normative references to Internet-Drafts will cause publication of the
   RFC to be suspended until the referenced draft is also ready for
   publication; the RFC Editor will then update the entry to refer to
   the RFC and publish both documents simultaneously.  URIs in RFCs

   The use of URIs in references is acceptable as long as the URI is the
   most stable (i.e., unlikely to change and expected to be continuously
   available) and direct reference possible.  The URI will be verified
   as valid during the RFC editorial process.  

   If a dated URI (one that includes a timestamp for the page) is
   available for a referenced web page, its use is required.

   Note that URIs may not be the sole information provided for a
   reference entry.  Referencing RFCs

   The following format is required for citing RFCs.  Note the ordering
   for multiple authors: the last author listed is treated differently
   than the already listed authors. 


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   For 1 Author or Editor:

      [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), 
                "RFC Title", BCP/FYI/STD ## (if applicable), 
                RFC ####, Date of Publication.


      [RFC3080] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange
                Protocol Core", RFC 3080, March 2001.

   For 2 Authors or Editors:

      [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) 
                and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if appropriate), 
                "RFC Title", BCP/FYI/STD ## (if applicable), 
                RFC ####, Date of Publication. 


      [RFC6323] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "Sender RTT
                Estimate Option for the Datagram Congestion
                Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 6323, July 2011.

   For 3 or more Authors or Editors:

      [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), 
                Last name, First initial., Ed. (if appropriate) 
                and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if appropriate), 
                "RFC Title", BCP/FYI/STD ## (if applicable), 
                RFC ####, Date of Publication.


      [RFC6429] Bashyam, M., Jethanandani, M., and A. Ramaiah, 
                "TCP Sender Clarification for Persist 
                Condition", RFC 6429, December 2011.
                <>  Referencing STDs and BCPs

   Standards (STDs) and Best Current Practices (BCPs) may consist of a
   single RFC or multiple RFCs.  When an STD or BCP that contains

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   multiple RFCs is referenced, the reference entry should include ALL
   of the RFCs comprising that subseries.  The authors should refer to
   specific RFC numbers as part of the text (not as citations) and cite
   the subseries number.  Inclusion of the URI to the STD or BCP info
   page is now recommended.  The text should appear as follows:

      See RFC 1034 [STD13].

   For an STD or BCP that contains one RFC:

      [STDXXX]  Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
                "RFC Title", BCP/FYI/STD ##, RFC ####, Date of


      [STD72]   Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission 
                for Mail", STD 72, RFC 6409, November 2011.

   For an STD or BCP that contains two or more RFCs:

      [STDXXX]  Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
                "RFC Title", BCP/FYI/STD ##, RFC ####, Date of

                Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
                and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable)
                "RFC Title", BCP/FYI/STD ##, RFC ####, Date of



      [STD13]    Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and 
                 facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

                 Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
                 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

                 <>  Referencing Internet-Drafts


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 17]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   References to Internet-Drafts can only appear as Informative
   references.  Given that several revisions of an I-D may be produced
   in a short time frame, references must include the publication date
   (month and year), the full Internet-Draft file name (including the
   version number), and the use of the phrase "Work in Progress".  If
   the I-D referenced has a version published as an RFC, references must
   also include the RFC.  Authors may reference multiple versions of an

     [SYMBOLIC-TAG]  Last name, First initial. and First 
                     initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable) 
                     "I-D Title", Work in Progress, 
                     draft-string-NN, Month Year.


      [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", 
                  Work in Progress, draft-flanagan-style-01, 
                  August 2013.  Referencing Errata

   The following format is required when a reference to an erratum
   report is necessary:  

      [ErrNNNN]  RFC Errata, Erratum ID NNNN, RFC MMMM.

      [Err1912]  RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1912, RFC 2978.  Referencing Other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs)

   The following format is suggested when referencing a document or
   standard from another SDO in which authors are listed:

              Last name, First initial. and First initial. Last name,
              "Document Title", Document reference number, date of
              publication, <URI if available>.

              Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E.,
              Yergeau, F., and J. Cowan, "Extensible Markup Language
              (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)", W3C Recommendation 
              REC-xml11-20060816, August 2006, <

   Note that the list of authors is ordered as on the actual document

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 18]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   and the common, abbreviated form of the SDO is used. 

   Alternatively, when no list of authors is available, the following
   format is recommended: 

      [SYMBOLIC-TAG]  Organization, "Document Title", Document 
                      reference number, date of publication, 
                      <URI if available>.


      [IEEE802.1Q]  IEEE, "Local and Metropolitan Area 
                    Networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) 
                    Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area 
                    Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011, August 2011,

4.9.  Appendices Section

   The RFC Editor recommends placing references before the Appendices.
   Appendices should be labeled as "Appendix A.  Appendix A Title",
   "A.1.  Appendix A.1 Title", "Appendix B.  Appendix B Title", etc. 

4.10.  Acknowledgments Section

   This optional section may be used instead of or in addition to a
   Contributors section.  It is often used by authors to publicly thank
   those who have provided feedback regarding a document and to note any
   documents from which text was borrowed.

4.11.  Contributors Section

   This optional section acknowledges those who have made significant
   contributions to the document.   

   In a similar fashion to the Author section, the RFC Editor does not
   make the determination as to who should be listed as a contributor to
   an RFC.  The determination of who should be listed as a contributor
   on an RFC is made by the stream.   

   The Contributors section may include brief statements about the
   nature of particular contributions ("Sam contributed Section 3"), and
   it may also include affiliations of listed contributors.  At the
   discretion of the author(s), contact addresses may also be included
   in the Contributors section, for those contributors whose knowledge
   makes them useful future contacts for information about the RFC.  Any
   contact information should be formatted similar to how the

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 19]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   information is formatted in the Author's Address section.  

4.12.  "Author's Address" or "Authors' Addresses" Section

   This required section gives contact information for the author(s)
   listed in the first-page header. 

   Contact information must include a long-lived email address and
   optionally may include a postal address and/or telephone number.  If
   the postal address is included, it should include the country name
   using the English short name listed by the ISO 3166 Maintenance
   Agency [ISO3166].  The purpose of this section is to (1)
   unambiguously define author identity (e.g., the John Smith who works
   for FooBar Systems) and to (2) provide contact information for future
   readers who have questions or comments. 

   The practice of munged addresses (i.e., altering an email address to
   make it less readable to bots and web crawlers to avoid spam) is not
   appropriate in an archival document series.  Author contact
   information is provided so that readers can easily contact the author
   with questions and/or comments.  Address munging is not allowed in

5.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA actions required.

6.  Security Considerations

   No security considerations.


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 20]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [STYLE-WEB] RFC Editor, "Web Portion of the Style Guide", 

7.2.  Informative References

   [ABBR]     RFC Editor Abbreviations List, 

   [BCP14]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,

   [BCP18]    Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
              Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998,

   [BCP26]    Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008, <>.

   [BCP72]    Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
              2003, <>. 

   [CLUSTER]  RFC Editor, "Clusters in the RFC Editor Queue", 

   [CMOS]     Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. Chicago: University of
              Chicago Press, 2010.  

   [FYI90]    Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction to
              the FYI Notes", FYI Notes, RFC 1150, March 1990.

              Housley, R., "Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series", RFC 6360,
              August 2011.


   [ID-GUIDE]  IETF, "Guidelines to Authors of Internet Drafts",

              IETF Trust, "Trust Legal Provisions (TLP) Documents",

Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 21]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014


   [ISO_OBP]  ISO, "Online Browsing Platform",                

   [ISO3297]  Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and
              documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and
              description, "Information and documentation -
              International standard serial number (ISSN)", September

              IETF OPS Area, "Boilerplate for IETF MIB Documents",

   [MIB-SEC]   IETF OPS Area, "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB

              RFC Editor, "Publication Process", 

   [RFC1311]  Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
              March 1992,

   [RFC1818]  Postel, J., Li, T., and Y. Rekhter, "Best Current
              Practices", RFC 1818, August 1995, 

   [RFC2223]  Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors",
              RFC 2223, October 1997, <http://www.rfc-

   [RFC2606]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS 
              Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999, 

   [RFC4844]  Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
              Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007,

   [RFC5741]  Daigle, L., Ed., and Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC
              Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December
              2009, <>. 


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 22]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   [RFC6635]  Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor 
              Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, June 2012, 

   [STD66]    Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
              3986, January 2005,

   [YANG-SEC]  IETF OPS Area, "yang module security considerations",


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 23]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

Appendix A.  Related Procedures

   The following procedures are related to the application and updating
   of the RFC Style Guide. 

A.1.  Dispute Resolution

   There are competing rationales for some of the rules described in
   this Guide, and the RFC Editor has selected the ones that work best
   for the Series. However, at times, an author may have a disagreement
   with the RFC Production Center (RPC) over the application of style
   guide conventions.  In such cases, the authors should discuss their
   concerns with the RPC.  If no agreement can be reached between the
   RPC and the authors, the RFC Series Editor will, with input from the
   appropriate stream approving body, make a final determination.  If
   further resolution is required, the dispute resolution process as
   described in the RFC Editor Model [RFC6635] will be followed. 

A.2.  Returning an I-D to the Document Stream

   For a given document, if the RFC Editor determines that it cannot be
   edited without serious risk of altering the meaning of the technical
   content or if the RFC Editor does not have the resources to provide
   the level of editing it needs, it may be sent back to the stream
   approving body with a request to improve the clarity, consistency,
   and/or readability of the document.  This is not to be considered a
   dispute with the author.    

A.3.  Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages

   The RFC Series is continually evolving as a document series.  This
   document focuses on the fundamental and stable requirements that must
   be met by an RFC.  From time to time, the RFC Editor may offer less
   formal recommendations that authors may apply at their discretion;
   these recommendations may be found on the RFC Editor website
   "Guidelines for RFC Style" [STYLE-WEB].

   When a new recommendation is made regarding the overall structure and
   formatting of the RFCs, it will be published on that page and
   accepted for a period of time before the RFC Editor determines
   whether it should become part of the fundamental requirements in the
   RFC Style Guide or remain as a less formal recommendation.  That
   period of time will vary in part depending on the frequency with
   which authors encounter and apply the guidance.



Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 24]
INTERNET DRAFT              RFC Style Guide                April 9, 2014

   This document refers heavily to RFC 2223 [RFC2223] and draft-rfc-
   editor-rfc2223bis-08; as such, we are grateful to the authors of
   those documents for their time and effort in to the RFC Series.

   Robert T. Braden
   USC Information Sciences Institute

   Joyce Reynolds

   Jon Postel


   Alice Russo
   RFC Production Center

Authors' Addresses

   Heather Flanagan
   RFC Series Editor


   Sandy Ginoza
   RFC Production Center


Flanagan & Ginoza       Expires October 11, 2014               [Page 25]