Network Working Group L. Daigle, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Intended status: BCP O. Kolkman, Ed.
Expires: December 29, 2008 Internet Architecture Board
(IAB)
June 27, 2008
On RFC Streams Headers and Boilerplates
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2008.
Abstract
RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title
page header, standard boilerplates and a standard acknowledgement
section. This document describes them and introduces some updates to
reflect current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In
particular, this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly
the source of RFC creation and review.
Daigle, et al. Expires December 29, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates June 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. The title page header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. The Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11
Daigle, et al. Expires December 29, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates June 2008
1. Introduction
RFCs published before this document (e.g. the one immeditatly prior
to this one [RFCXXXX-1]) (??? or is it prior to approval of this
document?) contained a number of elements that were there for
historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also contained
boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the document
and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document interacts
with IETF standard track documents.
As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been
increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to
make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it
describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as
part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs
that may have had a very different review and approval process.
Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving
text of "Notes" included in the published RFC.
With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844] it is
appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of
standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure
better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the
review and approval processes defined for each stream.
This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC
boilerplate structure, and provides a comprehensive approach to
updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC
document and content status. Most of the historical structure
information is collected from [RFC2223].
2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards
Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet standards-
related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet
standards-related documents.
The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards
Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing
and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other
standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are
reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF
Stream.
Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not
reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, congestion control,
or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. They have also
Daigle, et al. Expires December 29, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates June 2008
not been subject to IESG approval, including an IETF-wide last call.
Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF Stream
documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any
purpose.
Refer to [RFC2026] and [RFC4844] and their succession for current
detail of IETF process and RFCs streams.
3. RFC Structural Elements
3.1. The title page header
An RFC title page header can be described as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<document source> <author name>
Request for Comments: <RFC number> <author affiliation>
[<subseries ID> <subseries number>] [more author info as appropriate]
[<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>]
Category: <category>
ISSN: [TBD] <month year>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Working Group T. Dierks
Request for Comments: 4346 Independent
Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla
Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc.
April 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right column contains author name and affiliation information as
well as RFC publication date. Conventions and restrictions for these
elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual stream
definitions.
This memo is primarily concerned with the information in left column:
<document source> This describes the area where the work originates.
Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group.
"Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's
IETF when people from the original set of Arpanet sites and
whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got
Daigle, et al. Expires December 29, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates June 2008
together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols.'
[Steve Crocker, private communication]. Here, we obsolete the
term "Network Working Group" in order to indicate the originating
stream.
The <document source> is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in
[RFC4844] and its successors. At the time of this publication,
the streams, and therefore the possible entries are:
* IETF Stream
* IAB Stream
* IRTF Stream
* Independent Stream
Request for Comments: <RFC number> This indicates the RFC number,
assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This
element is unchanged.
<subseries ID> <subseries number> Some document categories are also
labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as
appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the
documents number within that series. Currently, there are
subseries for BCPs, STDs and FYIs. These subseries numbers may
appear in several RFCs. For example, when a new RFC updates an
old one, the same subseries number is used. Also, several RFCs
may be assigned the same subseries number: a single STD, for
example, may be composed of several RFCs, each of which will bear
the same STD number. This element is unchanged.
[<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>] Some relations between RFCs in the
series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new
RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Current relationships
are "Updates" and "Obsoletes". This document introduces the new
relation "Clarifies" which can be used when a new RFC updates a
previous RFC without making any normative changes.
Category: <category> This indicates the RFC document category of the
publication. These are defined in [RFC2026]. Currently, this is
always one of: Standards Track, Best Current Practice,
Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element is
unchanged.
Daigle, et al. Expires December 29, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates June 2008
The ISSN number is the International Standard Serial
Number[ISO3297]. Once such number has been assigned to the RFC
series this element will appear here.
3.2. The Status of this Memo
The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC,
including the distribution statement. This text is included
irrespective of the source stream of the RFC.
Going forward, the "Status of This Memo" will start with a single
line describing the status. It will also include a statement
describing the the stream-specific review of the material (which is
stream-dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar
as it clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader
an understanding of how to consider its content.
The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a
single line. It depends on the category of the document.
This memo is an Internet Standards Track document.
This memo is documents a Best Current Practice
This memo is not an Internet Standard Track specification, it is
published for Informational purposes.
The second paragraph contains the current text [RFC2223] describing
categories is as follows:
Standards Track: "This document specifies an Internet standards
track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion
and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current
edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for
the standardization state and status of this protocol.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
Best Current Practice: "This document specifies an Internet Best
Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests
discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited."
Experimental: "This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the
Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet
standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement
are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
Daigle, et al. Expires December 29, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates June 2008
Informational: "This memo provides information for the Internet
community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any
kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a
paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has
received. This is defined on a per-stream basis. Going forward,
these paragraphs will be defined as part of RFC stream definition.
Initial paragraphs for the existing streams are:
IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Per the IETF's specification process, this
document represents a consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by
the IESG."
IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed
valuable to provide for permanent record. This document has been
approved for publication by the IAB and is therefore not a
candidate for any level of Internet Standard, see section
Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
related research and development activities. These results might
not be suitable for deployment. This document has been approved
for publication by the IRSG and is therefore not a candidate for
any level of Internet Standard, see section Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the
IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the
<insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual
opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)".
Independent Stream: "This document is a contribution to the RFC
Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has
chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no
statement about its value for implementation or deployment. It is
therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, see
section Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
Daigle, et al. Expires December 29, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates June 2008
3.3. Additional Notes
Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe
additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status
of This Memo".
While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal
of this exercise to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear
to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly
exceptional.
4. Security considerations
This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an
RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause
interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems.
5. IANA considerations
None.
6. RFC Editor Considerations
[To Be Removed before publication]
The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be
removed after publication.
ISSN: [TBD] is where the International Standards Serial Number will
need to be appear once assigned.
The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo.
The Reference RFCXXXX-1 is to be replaced with the details of the RFC
published prior to this publication.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors",
Daigle, et al. Expires December 29, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates June 2008
RFC 2223, October 1997.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
7.2. Informative References
[ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and
documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and
description., "Information and documentation -
International standard serial number (ISSN)", 09 2007.
[RFCXXXX-1]
Blaaa Fooo, "[The RFC previous to this one]", --- 2007.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC3978] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3978, March 2005.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker and John Klensin
who provided background information and inspiration.
Various people have made suggestions that improved the document.
Among them are: Loa Andersson, Lars Eggert, Russ Housley, David Oran.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
Appendix B. Document Editing Details
[To Be Removed before publication]
This section will contain a discription of the changes between the
various versions of this document.
Authors' Addresses
Leslie Daigle (editor)
Email: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com
Daigle, et al. Expires December 29, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates June 2008
Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)
Internet Architecture Board
Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
Internet Architecture Board
Email: iab@iab.org
Daigle, et al. Expires December 29, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates June 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Daigle, et al. Expires December 29, 2008 [Page 11]
