Network Working Group H. Flanagan
Internet-Draft S. Ginoza
Intended status: Informational RFC Editor
Expires: September 11, 2017 March 10, 2017
RFC Style Guide
draft-flanagan-7322bis-00
Abstract
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.
This document obsoletes RFC 7322, "RFC Style Guide".
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RFC Editor's Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RFC Style Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. DNS Names and URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Capitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Abbreviation Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.7. RFCs as Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.8. Images and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Structure of an RFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. First-Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.1. Author/Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.2. Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.3. ISSN: 2070-1721 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.4. Updates and Obsoletes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Full Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Abstract Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.8. Body of the Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.8.1. Introduction Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.8.2. Requirements Language Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.8.3. IANA Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8.4. Internationalization Considerations Section . . . . . 14
4.8.5. Security Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8.6. References Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.9. Appendices Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.10. Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.11. Acknowledgements Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.12. Contributors Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.13. Author's Address or Authors' Addresses Section . . . . . 21
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. Related Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.1. Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.2. Returning an I-D to the Document Stream . . . . . . . . . 25
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
A.3. Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages . . . . . 25
Appendix B. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Introduction
The ultimate goal of the RFC publication process is to produce
documents that are readable, clear, consistent, and reasonably
uniform. The basic formatting 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.3) 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 [STYLE-WEB]. These topics 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, or to
preserve historical formatting rules. This document presents these
exceptions as applied or recommended by the RFC Editor.
All RFCs begin as Internet-Drafts (also referred to as I-Ds), 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 Editor's Philosophy
Authors may find it helpful to understand the RFC Editor's goals
during the publication process, namely to:
o Prepare the document according to RFC style and format.
o Make the document as clear, consistent, and readable as possible.
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
o Correct larger content/clarity issues; flag any unclear passages
for author review.
o Fix inconsistencies (e.g., terms that appear in various forms,
text that appears multiple times, or inconsistent capitalization).
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 sometimes 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 the RFC Editor cannot edit a document without serious risk of
altering the meaning, it may be returned to the stream-approving body
for review. See Appendix A.2 for more information.
3. RFC Style Conventions
This Style Guide does not use terminology as defined in RFC 2119
[BCP14]. In this document, lowercase use of "must" and "should"
indicates changes the RFC Editor will make automatically to conform
with this Style Guide versus those that may be questioned if not
applied. The lowercase "must" indicates those changes that will be
applied automatically and are not at the discretion of the authors.
The lowercase "should" indicates the RFC Editor's recommended use,
but conformance with the recommendations is not required; the RFC
Editor may question whether the guidance may be applied.
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
3.1. Language
The RFC publication language is English. Spelling may be either
American or British, as long as an individual document is internally
consistent. Where both American and British English spelling are
used within a document or cluster of documents, the text will be
modified to be consistent with American English spelling.
3.2. Punctuation
o A comma is used before the last item of a series, e.g.,
"TCP service is reliable, ordered, and full duplex"
o 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. "
Quotation marks are not necessary when text is formatted as a
block quotation.
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" [BCP32], to avoid accidental conflicts.
Angle brackets are strongly recommended around URIs [STD66], e.g.,
<http://example.com/ >
The use of HTTPS rather than HTTP is strongly encouraged.
3.4. Capitalization
o 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 [TERMS].
o Per CMOS guidelines, the major words in RFC titles and section
titles should be capitalized (this is sometimes called "title
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
case"). Typically, all words in a title will be capitalized,
except for internal articles, prepositions, and conjunctions.
o Section titles that are in sentence form will follow typical
sentence capitalization.
o Titles of figures may be in sentence form or use title case.
3.5. Citations
o References and citations must match. That is, there must be a
reference for each citation used, and vice versa.
o Citations must be enclosed in square brackets (e.g., "[CITE1]").
o A citation/reference tag must not contain spaces.
* Example: "[RFC2119]" rather than "[RFC 2119]"
o However, the proper textual naming of an RFC contains a space.
* Example: "See RFC 2119 [BCP14] for more information."
o Cross-references within the body of the memo and to other RFCs
must use section numbers rather than page numbers, as pagination
may change per format and device.
o An in-text citation may a) follow the subject for which it is
being cited or b) be read as part of the text. For example:
* a) As part of the transition to IPv6, NAT64 [RFC6146] and DNS64
[RFC6147] technologies will be utilized by some access networks
to provide IPv4 connectivity for IPv6-only nodes [RFC6144].
or
b) Note that SAVI raises a number of important privacy
considerations that are discussed more fully in [RFC6959].
We recommend using a) and strongly recommend consistent use of one
style throughout.
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
an abbreviation that is so common that the readership of RFCs can be
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
expected to recognize it 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, Working Group Chairs,
and/or Area Directors (ADs). Note that some abbreviations have
multiple expansions. Additionally, this list includes some terms
that look like abbreviations but that are actually fixed names for
things and hence cannot and should not be expanded. These are noted
as "No Expansion".
3.7. RFCs as Compounds
Whenever possible:
o Hyphenated compounds formed with RFC numbers should be avoided;
this can be accomplished by: rewording the sentence (e.g.,
[RFC5011]-style rollover -> rollover as described in RFC 5011).
o adding a note in either the Terminology or Conventions section
mentioning the RFC so that other occurrences throughout the text
will be understood by the reader to be in the style of said RFC
(e.g., This document uses the term "rollover" as defined in RFC
5011.).
If use of an RFC number in attributive position is unavoidable, the
preferred form should appear as in the example "RFC 5011-style
rollover". That is:
o no hyphen between "RFC" and the number (don't use RFC-5011-style
rollover)
o avoid hyphenating citations with text (don't use [RFC5011]-style
rollover)
3.8. Images and Figures
The goal of having images within an RFC is to convey information. A
good diagram or image expresses information quickly, clearly, and
with low chance of misunderstanding. Technically correct but
confusing images get in the way of understanding and implementation.
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
o Images should be legible when displayed on a standard screen
(1920x1080) and printed on either A4 or US Letter paper. Any text
within the diagram should be readable at that resolution.
o Authors should use black on white, not white on black. No color
or greyscale [RFC7990][RFC7996]
o Keep your diagrams as simple as possible. If an object in the
diagram is not immediately relevant, leave it out. If you have
several ideas you want to convey, consider using more than one
diagram.
o San-serif fonts are generally considered more readable for digital
material. [citation needed]
o The style of diagrams within an RFC should be consistent (fonts,
shapes, lines). For example, if you you use a dashed line to
indicate a certain type of packet flow, then continue to use that
style of line consistently. This is encouraged within a single
RFC and also within a cluster of RFCs.
o Line styles, including thickness, color, and arrow types, are easy
methods to convey a particular meaning to the reader.
Consistently use the same line styles to convey a particular
meaning throughout all diagrams within an RFC in order to avoid
confusing the reader.
o Flowcharts: avoid crossing the lines if possible.
4. Structure of an RFC
A published RFC will largely contain the elements in the following
list. 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.
First-page header * [Required]
Title [Required]
Abstract [Required]
RFC Editor or Stream Note * [Upon request]
Status of This Memo * [Required]
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
Copyright Notice * [Required]
Table of Contents * [Required]
Body of the Memo [Required]
1. Introduction [Required]
2. Requirements Language (RFC 2119)
3. ...
MAIN BODY OF THE TEXT
6. ...
7. IANA Considerations [Required]
8. Internationalization Considerations
9. Security Considerations [Required]
10. References
10.1. Normative References
10.2. Informative References
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Index
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Author's Address [Required]
Within the body of the memo, the order shown above is strongly
recommended. Exceptions may 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.
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
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 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.
The author's name (initial 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. Once the
author has selected how their name should appear, they should use
that display consistently in all of their documents.
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 section. There must be a direct
correlation of authors and editors in the document header and the
Authors' Addresses section. These are the individuals that must sign
off on the document during the AUTH48 process and respond to
inquiries, such as errata.
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
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
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
Editor.
4.1.4. Updates and Obsoletes
When an RFC obsoletes or updates a previously published RFC or RFCs,
this information is included in the document header. For example:
"Updates: nnnn" or "Updates: nnnn, ..., nnnn"
"Obsoletes: nnnn" or "Obsoletes: nnnn, ..., nnnn"
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 in a title must generally be expanded when first
encountered (see Section 3.6 for additional guidance on
abbreviations).
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 describing 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.
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
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.
4.4. RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section
A stream-approving body may approve the 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
RFC.
4.5. Status of This Memo Section
The RFC Editor will supply an appropriate "Status of This Memo" as
defined in RFC 5741 [RFC5741] and "Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream"
[IAB-FORM].
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].
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
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
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
acceptable.
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-
Standard Management Framework" [MIB-BOILER] text to appear as
Section 1.
4.8.2. Requirements Language 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 memo (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:
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
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 retransmisssions) 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
For guidance on how to register IANA-related values or create new
registries to be managed by IANA, see "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs" [BCP26].
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 memo.
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
recommended.
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.
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
information.
Note that additional boilerplate material 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 details.
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
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, some reference styles have been described for use
within the Series. See the examples in this document.
The RFC Editor ensures that references to other RFCs refer to the
most current RFC available on that topic (unless provided with a
reason not to do so). When referring to an obsoleted document, it is
common practice to also refer to the most recent version.
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.
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. More information about normative and
informative references may be found in the IESG's statement
"Normative and Informative References" [REFS]. When both normative
and informative references exist, the references section should be
split into two subsections:
Templates are available on the RFC Editor website for the XML format
of certain references [REFEXAMPLE].
s. References
s.1. Normative References
xxx
...
xxx
s.2. Informative References
xxx
...
xxx
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
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.
4.8.6.1. 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.
The use of HTTPS rather than HTTP is strongly encouraged.
4.8.6.2. Referencing RFCs
The following format is required for referencing RFCs. The Stream
abbreviation should be used; when no stream is available, as with
legacy RFCs, this may be left blank.
Note the ordering for multiple authors: the format of the name of the
last author listed is different than that of all previous authors in
the list.
For one author or editor:
[RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC
Title", Stream, Sub-series number (if applicable), RFC number, DOI,
Date of publication, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc# .
Example:
[RFC3080] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core,"
IETF, RFC 3080, DOI 10.17487/RFC3080, March 2001, http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3080 .
For two authors or editors:
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
[RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and First
initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-
series number (if applicable), RFC number, DOI, Date of publication,
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc# .
Example:
[RFC6323] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "Sender RTT Estimate Option
for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", IETF, RFC 6323,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6323, July 2011, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/
rfc6323 .
For three or more authors or editors:
[RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), Last name,
First initial., Ed. (if applicable), and First initial. Last name,
Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-series number (if
applicable), RFC number, DOI, Date of publication, http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc# .
Example:
[RFC6429] Bashyam, M., Jethanandani, M., and A. Ramaiah, "TCP Sender
Clarification for Persist Condition", IETF, RFC 6429, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6429, December 2011, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6429 .
4.8.6.3. Referencing STDs and BCPs
Internet Standards (STDs) and Best Current Practices (BCPs) may
consist of a single RFC or multiple RFCs. When an STD or BCP that
contains multiple RFCs is referenced, the reference entry should
include ALL of the RFCs comprising that sub-series. The authors
should refer to specific RFC numbers as part of the text (not as
citations) and cite the sub-series number. Inclusion of the URI to
the STD or BCP info page (see Section 3.2.3 of [RFC5741]) is
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", Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, DOI, Date of
publication, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std# .
Example:
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
[STD72] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
IETF, STD 72, RFC 6409, DOI 10.17487/RFC6409, November 2011,
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std72 .
For an STD or BCP that contains two or more RFCs:
[STDXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC
Title", Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, DOI, Date of
publication.
Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable),
"RFC Title", Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, DOI,
Date of publication.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std#>
Example:
[STD13] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987.
Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std13>
4.8.6.4. Referencing Internet-Drafts
References to Internet-Drafts may 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 posting date
(month and year), the full Internet-Draft file name (including the
version number), and the phrase "Work in Progress". Authors may
reference multiple versions of an I-D. If the referenced I-D was
also later published as an RFC, then that RFC must also be listed.
[SYMBOLIC-TAG] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and
First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "I-D Title", Work in
Progress, draft-string-NN, Month Year.
Example:
[RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", Work in
Progress, draft-flanagan-style-01, June 2013.
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
4.8.6.5. Referencing Errata
The following format is required when a reference to an erratum
report is necessary:
[ErrNumber] RFC Errata, Erratum ID number, RFC number, <URI>.
[Err1912] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1912, RFC 2978, xxx.
4.8.6.6. 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:
[SYMBOLIC-TAG]
Last name, First initial. and First initial. Last name,
"Document Title", Document reference number, Date of
publication, <URI if available >.
[W3C.REC-xml11]
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,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816 >.
The order of authors in the list is the same as the order shown on
the actual document and that 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>.
Example:
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
[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,
<http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/
802.1Q-2011.html>
Per the IEEE coordination team, listing dates for IEEE standards is
not recommended unless there is a need to cite a particular section,
in which case the dated reference is appropriate. An RFC with a
dated IEEE reference suggests that the RFC only applies to that
specific IEEE specification.
4.8.6.7. Referencing Email on Mailing Lists
When referencing emails to mailing lists, the template provided here
should be used:
[reftag] Sender, A., "Subject: Subject line", message to the
listname mailing list, DD Month YYYY, <URL >.
4.9. Appendices Section
The RFC Editor recommends placing references before the Appendices.
Appendices should be labeled as "Appendix A. Title", "A.1. Title",
"Appendix B. Title", etc.
4.10. Index
If included, an index appears directly after any appendices and
before the Acknowledgements (if any). Where applicable, it appears
before the "IAB Members at the Time of Approval" section.
4.11. Acknowledgements 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.
4.12. Contributors Section
This optional section acknowledges those who have made significant
contributions to the document.
In a similar fashion to the Author�s Address section, the RFC
Editor does not make the determination as to who should be listed as
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
a contributor to an RFC. The determination of who should be listed
as a contributor is made by the stream.
The Contributors section may include brief statements about the
nature of particular contributions (e.g., "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. The format of any contact information
should be similar to the format of information in the Author�s
Address section.
4.13. 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 [ISO_OBP]. The purpose of this section is to (1)
unambiguously define author identity (e.g., the John Smith who works
for FooBar Systems) and (2) provide contact information for future
readers who have questions or comments.
The practice of munged email 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 RFCs.
5. Security Considerations
This document has no security considerations.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations.
7. References
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
7.1. Normative References
[STYLE-WEB]
RFC Editor, "Web Portion of the Style Guide",
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/part2.html>.
7.2. Informative References
[ABBR] RFC Editor, "RFC Editor Abbreviations List",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/
abbrev.expansion.txt>.
[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14>.
[BCP18] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp18>.
[BCP26] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an
ANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26>.
[BCP32] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/bcp32>.
[BCP72] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp72>.
[CLUSTER] RFC Editor, "Clusters in the RFC Editor Queue",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_def.html>.
[CMOS] University of Chicago Press, 2010, "Chicago Manual of
Style, 16th ed.", 2010.
[FYI90] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction to
the FYI Notes", FYI 90, RFC 1150, March 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/fyi90>.
Housley, R., "Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series", RFC 6360,
August 2011.
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
[IAB-FORM]
IAB, "Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/iab-
format.txt>.
[ID-GUIDE]
IETF, "Guidelines to Authors of Internet Drafts",
<http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt>.
[IETF-TRUST]
IETF Trust, "Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)",
<https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/>.
[ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and
documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, "Identification and
description, Information and documentation - International
standard serial number (ISSN)", September 2007.
[ISO_OBP] ISO, "Online Browsing Platform (OBP)",
<https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/>.
[MIB-BOILER]
IETF OPS Area, "Boilerplate for IETF MIB Documents",
<https://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html>.
[MIB-SEC] IETF OPS Area, "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules",
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-
security>.
[REFEXAMPLE]
RFC Editor, "Reference Examples", <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/ref-example/>.
[REFS] IESG, "IESG Statement: Normative and Informative",
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/
normative-informative.html>.
[RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1311>.
[RFC1818] Postel, J., Li, T., and Y. Rekhter, "Best Current
Practices", RFC 1818, DOI 10.17487/RFC1818, August 1995,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1818>.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
July 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
[RFC5741] Daigle, L., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Streams,
Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5741, December 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5741>.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
[RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7990>.
[RFC7996] Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC",
RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7996>.
[STD66] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Synta", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/
std66>.
[TERMS] RFC Editor, "Terms List", <https://www.rfc-editor.org/
styleguide.html>.
[YANG-SEC]
IETF Ops Area, "yang module security considerations",
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/yang-
security-guidelines>.
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
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 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 September 11, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis March 2017
Appendix B. Contributors
Alice Russo RFC Production Center
Authors' Addresses
Heather Flanagan RFC Series Editor
EMail: rse@rfc-editor.org
Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center
EMail: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Authors' Addresses
Heather Flanagan
RFC Editor
EMail: rse@rfc-editor.org
URI: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220
Sandy Ginoza
RFC Editor
EMail: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
URI: https://www.rfc-editor.org
Flanagan & Ginoza Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 26]