RFC Style Guide
RFC 7322
| Document | Type |
RFC
- Informational
(September 2014)
Errata
Updated by RFC 7997
Obsoletes RFC 2223
Was
draft-iab-styleguide
(individual)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | RFC Editor , Heather Flanagan | ||
| Last updated | 2017-08-03 | ||
| Replaces | draft-flanagan-style | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Architecture Board (IAB) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | IAB state | Published RFC | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) |
RFC 7322
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) H. Flanagan
Request for Comments: 7322 S. Ginoza
Obsoletes: 2223 RFC Editor
Category: Informational September 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721
RFC Style Guide
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 2223, "Instructions to RFC Authors".
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the
Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for
publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. RFC Editor's 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 ..................................................6
3.6. Abbreviation Rules .........................................7
4. Structure of an RFC .............................................8
4.1. First-Page Header ..........................................9
4.1.1. Author/Editor .......................................9
4.1.2. Organization ........................................9
4.1.3. "ISSN: 2070-1721" ..................................10
4.1.4. Updates and Obsoletes ..............................10
4.2. Full Title ................................................10
4.3. Abstract Section ..........................................11
4.4. RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section ........................11
4.5. Status of This Memo Section ...............................11
4.6. Copyright, Licenses, and IPR Boilerplate Section ..........11
4.7. Table of Contents Section .................................11
4.8. Body of the Memo .........................................12
4.8.1. Introduction Section ...............................12
4.8.2. Requirement Language Section .......................12
4.8.3. IANA Considerations Section ........................13
4.8.4. Internationalization Considerations Section ........13
4.8.5. Security Considerations Section ....................13
4.8.6. References Section .................................14
4.8.6.1. URIs in RFCs ..............................15
4.8.6.2. Referencing RFCs ..........................15
4.8.6.3. Referencing STDs and BCPs .................16
4.8.6.4. Referencing Internet-Drafts ...............17
4.8.6.5. Referencing Errata ........................18
4.8.6.6. Referencing Other Standards Development
Organizations (SDOs) ......................18
4.9. Appendices Section ........................................19
4.10. Acknowledgements Section .................................19
4.11. Contributors Section .....................................19
4.12. "Author's Address" or "Authors' Addresses" Section .......20
5. Security Considerations ........................................20
6. References .....................................................20
6.1. Normative References ......................................20
6.2. Informative References ....................................20
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
Appendix A. Related Procedures ....................................23
A.1. Dispute Resolution .........................................23
A.2. Returning an I-D to the Document Stream ....................23
A.3. Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages ............23
IAB Members at the Time of Approval ...............................24
Acknowledgements ..................................................24
Contributors ......................................................24
Authors' Addresses ................................................24
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.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
2. RFC Editor's Philosophy
Authors may find it helpful to understand the RFC Editor's goals
during the publication process, namely to:
- 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
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.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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.
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
* 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."
Quotation marks are not necessary when text is formatted as a
block quotation.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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/>
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 [TERMS].
* 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.
* 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.
Example: "[RFC2119]" rather than "[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 memo and to other RFCs
must use section numbers rather than page numbers, as pagination
may change per format and device.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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
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".
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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]
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 in I-D]
8. Internationalization Considerations
9. Security Considerations [Required]
10. References
10.1. Normative References
10.2. Informative References
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
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.
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).
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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
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.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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 Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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].
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.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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:
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
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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.
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
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 Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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:
s. References
s.1. Normative References
xxx
...
xxx
s.2. Informative References
xxx
...
xxx
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 14]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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.
4.8.6.2. Referencing RFCs
The following format is required for referencing RFCs. 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", Sub-series number (if applicable),
RFC number, Date of publication,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc#>.
Example:
[RFC3080] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange
Protocol Core", RFC 3080, March 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3080>.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 15]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
For two authors or editors:
[RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable),
"RFC Title", Sub-series number (if applicable),
RFC number, 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)", RFC 6323, 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", Sub-series number (if applicable),
RFC number, 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", RFC 6429, 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].
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 16]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
For an STD or BCP that contains one RFC:
[STDXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable),
"RFC Title", Sub-series number, RFC number, Date of
publication, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std#>.
Example:
[STD72] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission
for Mail", STD 72, RFC 6409, 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", Sub-series number, RFC number, Date of
publication.
Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable),
"RFC Title", Sub-series number, RFC number, Date of
publication.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std#>
Example:
[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.
<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.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 17]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
[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.
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.
[Err1912] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1912, RFC 2978.
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>.
Note that 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.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 18]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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:
[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>.
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. 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.
4.11. 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 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 ("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.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 19]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
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 [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. References
6.1. Normative References
[STYLE-WEB]
RFC Editor, "Web Portion of the Style Guide",
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/part2.html>.
6.2. Informative References
[ABBR] RFC Editor Abbreviations List,
<http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14>.
[BCP18] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp18>.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 20]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
[BCP26] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26>.
[BCP32] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999,
<http://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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp72>.
[CLUSTER] RFC Editor, "Clusters in the RFC Editor Queue",
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_def.html>.
[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.
[IAB-FORM] IAB, "Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream",
<http://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)",
<http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/>.
[ISO_OBP] ISO, "Online Browsing Platform (OBP)",
<https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/>.
[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.
[MIB-BOILER]
IETF OPS Area, "Boilerplate for IETF MIB Documents",
<http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html>.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 21]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
[MIB-SEC] IETF OPS Area, "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules",
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/
mib-security>.
[REFS] IESG, "IESG Statement: Normative and Informative
References", <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/
normative-informative.html>.
[RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
March 1992, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1311>.
[RFC1818] Postel, J., Li, T., and Y. Rekhter, "Best Current
Practices", RFC 1818, August 1995,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1818>.
[RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors",
RFC 2223, October 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/
info/rfc2223>.
[RFC2223bis]
Reynolds, J., Ed. and B. Braden, Ed. "Instructions to
Request for Comments (RFC) Authors", Work in Progress,
draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08, August 2004.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.
[RFC5741] Daigle, L., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Streams,
Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, 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, June 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
[STD66] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/
info/std66>.
[TERMS] RFC Editor, "Terms List",
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html>.
[YANG-SEC] IETF OPS Area, "yang module security considerations",
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/
yang-security-guidelines>.
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 22]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 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 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 Informational [Page 23]
RFC 7322 RFC Style Guide September 2014
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Jari Arkko (IETF Chair)
Mary Barnes
Marc Blanchet
Joel Halpern
Ted Hardie
Joe Hildebrand
Russ Housley
Eliot Lear
Xing Li
Erik Nordmark
Andrew Sullivan
Dave Thaler
Brian Trammell
Acknowledgements
This document refers heavily to RFC 2223 [RFC2223] and
[RFC2223bis]; as such, we are grateful to the authors of those
documents for putting their time and effort into the RFC Series.
Robert T. Braden
USC Information Sciences Institute
Joyce Reynolds
Jon Postel
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
Flanagan & Ginoza Informational [Page 24]