Re: I-D Action:draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-12.txt

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08#section-3.2.3> 
> says:
> 
>    "Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
>    and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
>    http://www.rfc-editor.org/<static-path>/rfc<rfc-no>.html"
> 
> Can we please recommend *not* to put a file extension into the URL?
> 
> BR, Julian
> ...

Hi,

in the meantime I have finished a prototype implementation of the new 
boilerplate in rfc2629.xslt (*not* xml2rfc!). The implementation is 
available from <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt.zip>, and 
requires the use of two new extension Processing Instructions to enable 
the new boilerplate:

   <?rfc-ext h-a-b="yes"?>
   <?rfc-ext consensus="no"?>

(where the first enables the new format, while the second provides the 
information about whether there was consensus, something the current 
xml2rfc format doesn't provide).

I haven't found any problems in addition to what was reported before, 
except for a trailing dot in one of the boilerplate statements, and 
cases of repeating sentence beginnings -- maybe all of this can be fixed 
during AUTH48 (although I'd prefer to see this in a new draft for 
community review).

For the record, here's a complete summary:

-- snip --
3.1.  The title page header

    <document source>  This describes the area where the work originates.
       Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group.
       "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's
       IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and
       whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got
       together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols
       [RFC0003].  Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working Group" in
       order to indicate the originating stream.

       The <document source> is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in
       [RFC4844] and its successors.  At the time of this publication,
       the streams, and therefore the possible entries are:

       *  Internet Engineering Task Force

       *  Internet Architecture Board

       *  Internet Research Task Force

       *  Independent

JRE: as discussed earlier: should this be "Independent Submission"
instead of "Independent"?

    [<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>]  Some relations between RFCs in the
       series are explicitly noted in the RFC header.  For example, a new
       RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs.  Currently two
       relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223].
       Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]).
       Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor and
       may appear in future RFCs.

JRE: "Obsoleted By" is not a variant of "Obsoletes" or "Updates".

3.2.2.  Paragraph 2

    The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a
    paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has
    received.  This is defined on a per-stream basis, subject to general
    review and oversight by the RFC Editor and IAB.  There is a specific
    structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about review
    processes and document types.  These paragraphs will need to be
    defined and maintained as part of RFC stream definitions.  Initial
    text, for current streams, is provided below.

    The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial
    document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or
    Historic the second paragraph opens with:

    Experimental:  "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
       the Internet community."

    Historic:  "This document defines a Historic Document for the
       Internet community."

JRE: the way paragraph 2 is generated, we end up with instances where
the 1st and 2nd sentence both start with "This document". This is ugly.
Is it too late to fix this?

       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)".

JRE: trailing dot missing in 2nd variant.


3.2.3.  Paragraph 3

    "Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
    and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/<static-path>/rfc<rfc-no>.html"

JRE: please do not bake a file extension into the permanent URL (see also
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg59415.html>)

-- snip --

Best regards, Julian