[rfc-i] headers and boilerplates last minute proposal

[leslie at thinkingcat.com (Leslie Daigle)]

[Trying this again, trimming the original message and the tail of the 
I-D, in order to get through the size limit on the mailing list.]

Hi,

Coming back to this issue -- consider the following changes (not yet
implemented in the XML -- apologies for the length of this file, but it
seemed clearest to keep all context here, and I have in-lined the
proposed edits using "OLD" and "NEW"):

> 
> 
> Network Working Group                                     L. Daigle, Ed.
> Internet-Draft                                           O. Kolkman, Ed.
> Updates: 4844, 2223
> (if approved)                                Internet Architecture Board
> Intended status: Informational                                     (IAB)
> Expires: September 3, 2009                                 March 2, 2009
> 
> 
>                On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
>                draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07
> 
> Status of this Memo
> 
>    This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
>    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> 
>    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
>    Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
>    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
>    Drafts.
> 
>    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 September 3, 2009.
> 
> Copyright Notice
> 
>    Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
>    publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
>    Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
>    and restrictions with respect to this document.
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 1]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements.
>    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.
> 
> 
> 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
>        3.2.1.  Paragraph 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
>        3.2.2.  Paragraph 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
>        3.2.3.  Paragraph 3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
>        3.2.4.  Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
>      3.3.  Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
>      3.4.  Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . .  9
>    4.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
>    5.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
>    6.  RFC Editor Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
>    7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
>      7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
>      7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
>    Appendix A.  Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates . . . 12
>      A.1.  IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
>      A.2.  IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . 12
>      A.3.  IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . . 13
>      A.4.  IAB Informational  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
>      A.5.  IRTF Experimental  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
>    Appendix B.  IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 15
>    Appendix C.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
>    Appendix D.  Document Editing Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
>      D.1.  version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
>      D.2.  version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
>      D.3.  version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
>      D.4.  version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
>      D.5.  version 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
>      D.6.  version 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
>      D.7.  version 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
>    Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 2]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>    Previously RFCs (e.g.  [RFC4844]) 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 Standards-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].
> 
>    The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as
>    practically possible after the document has been approved for
>    publication.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 3]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security,
>    congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
>    protocols.  They have also not been subject to approval by the
>    Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), 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], [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis], and [RFC4844] and
>    their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC
>    streams.
> 
> 
> 3.  RFC Structural Elements

OLD (-07) TEXT:
<empty>

NEW TEXT:

This section describes the elements that are commonly found in RFCs
published today.  For the sake of clarity, this document specifies the
elements precisely as a specification.  However, this is not intended to
cast the current format in stone.  Details of formatting are decided by
the RFC Editor.  Substantive changes to the header and boilerplate
structure and content may be undertaken in the future, and are subject
to general oversight and review by the IAB.

> 
> 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>
>                                                             <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 the RFC publication month.  Conventions and restrictions for
>    these elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual
>    stream definitions.
> 
>    This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left
>    column:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 4]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    <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
> 
>    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 [RFC2026], STDs [RFC1311], and FYIs [RFC1150].
>       These subseries numbers may appear in several RFCs.  For example,
>       when a new RFC obsoletes or 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.  Currently two
>       relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223].
>       Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]).

OLD (-07) text:

>       Other types of relations may be defined elsewhere.

NEW text:

Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor and may
appear in future RFCs.

> 
>    Category: <category>  This indicates the initial 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
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 5]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>       is unchanged.
> 
> 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.
> 

OLD (-07) text:

>    From now on, the "Status of This Memo" will start with a single

NEW text:

Upon approval of this document, the "Status of This Memo" will start
with a single

>    sentence describing the status.  It will also include a statement
>    describing 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.
> 
> 3.2.1.  Paragraph 1
> 
>    The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a
>    single sentence, clearly standing out.  It depends on the category of
>    the document.
> 
>    For 'Standards Track' documents:  "This is an Internet Standards
>       Track document."
> 
>    For 'Best Current Practices' documents:  "This memo documents an
>       Internet Best Current Practice."
> 
>    For other categories  "This document is not an Internet Standards
>       Track specification; <it is published for other purposes>."
> 
>    For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of
>    RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for <it is
>    published for other purposes>.  Initial values are:
> 
>    Informational:   "it is published for informational purposes."
> 
>    Historic:   "it is published for the historical record."
> 
>    Experimental:   "it is published for examination, experimental
>       implementation, and evaluation."
> 
> 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

OLD (-07) text:

>    received.  This is defined on a per-stream basis, although there is a
>    specific structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about
>    review processes and document types.  From now on, these paragraphs
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 6]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions.  Initial text, for
>    current streams, is provided below.


NEW text:

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.  From now on, these paragraphs
will be defined 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."
> 
>    The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values
>    and may be updated by stream definition document updates.
> 
>    IETF Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
>       Task Force (IETF)."
> 
>       If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an
>       additional sentence should be added: "It represents the consensus
>       of the IETF community.  It has received public review and has been
>       approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
>       Group (IESG)."  If there has not been such a consensus call then
>       this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the
>       Internet Engineering Steering Group (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."
> 
>    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."
> 
>       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 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 7]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is
>    added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for
>    publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB",
>    "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of
>    Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
> 
>    For IETF stream documents a similar reference is added: "Further
>    information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2
>    of RFC XXXX." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all
>    documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of
>    Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." for all other
>    categories.
> 
> 3.2.3.  Paragraph 3
> 
>    The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant
>    information can be found.  As boilerplate, this text should not be
>    document-specific, although the material to which it refers may lead
>    to document-specific information.  The exact wording is subject to
>    change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text is:
> 
>    "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/status/<stream-id>.html"
> 
>    where <stream-id> is one of: "ietf", "iab", "irtf", "independent".
> 
> 3.2.4.  Noteworthy
> 
>    Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate
>    the initial status of a document.  During their lifetime documents
>    can change status to e.g.  Historic.  This cannot be reflected in the
>    document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered
>    to in Section 3.4.
> 
> 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 document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear
>    to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly
>    exceptional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 8]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
> 3.4.  Other structural information in RFCs
> 
>    RFCs contain other structural informational elements.  The RFC Editor
>    is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural
>    element.  Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted
>    using a process consistent with [RFC4844].  These additions may or
>    may not require documentation in an RFC.
> 
>    Currently the following structural information is available or is
>    being considered for inclusion in RFCs:
> 
>    Copyright Notice  A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78
>       [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78
>       and BCP79 [BCP79].  The content of these statements are defined by
>       those BCPs.
> 
>    ISSN  The International Standard Serial Number [ISO3297]: ISSN 2070-
>       1721.  The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title
>       regardless of language or country in which it is published.  The
>       ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique
>       identification of a serial publication.
> 
>    Updates to the RFC  A reference identifying where more information
>       about the document can be found.  This may include information
>       whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a
>       listing of possible errata, information about how to provide
>       feedback and suggestion, and information on how to submit errata
>       as described in [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process].
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>    The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the
>    RFC series.  To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual
>    [RFC-style].  In this memo we mention a few explicit structural
>    elements that the RFC editor needs to maintain.  The conventions for
> 
> 
> 
> Daigle, et al.          Expires September 3, 2009               [Page 9]
> 
> Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         March 2009
> 
> 
>    the content and use of all current and future elements are to be
>    documented in the style manual.
> 
>    Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one
>    method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated.  The RFC
>    editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and
>    interfaces.
> 
>    [The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards
>    editing this document and can be removed before publication]
> 
>    The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be
>    removed before publication as an RFC.  This one and Appendix D.
> 
>    This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be
>    implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit
>    tracker and the rfc-erratum portal.
> 
>    The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo.
> 
>    References [RFC-style], [BCP78] and [BCP79] have been constructed.
>    Please bring these in line with RFC Editorial conventions.
> 
>    In section Section 3.4: For the final publication, it should be
>    warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity.
> 
> 

[Nothing changed in References or Appendixes etc]




Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------