[rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl (Olaf Kolkman) Tue, 13 January 2009 14:19 UTC
From: "olaf at NLnetLabs.nl"
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:19:52 +0100
Subject: [rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
In-Reply-To: <E3D204A8DFE8DFF3E0F69F6B@PST.jck.com>
References: <mailman.2963.1231576109.3336.rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> <F7B96AFCEDE9C8A81078320F@PST.jck.com> <87C383A0-013C-4F43-99BB-64C809337FFC@nlnetlabs.nl> <E3D204A8DFE8DFF3E0F69F6B@PST.jck.com>
Message-ID: <6054C4AE-3C66-48B4-A602-4E214BB17E65@nlnetlabs.nl>
On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:43 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > It is not clear to me that we have ever formally abolished FYI > RFCs at the BCP level. Latest I could find was FYI0036 published in 2007. > We just stopped creating new ones. If > that impression is correct, the IAB should either move to > formally get rid of them now or they should be at least > minimally reflected in this document and the RFC Editor Model > one. I don't think the relevant text should be significantly > different from the Informational text --in some sense, FYIs are > just a special case of Informational -- but ignoring them is the > sort of thing that gets us into trouble when we least expect it. In all honesty I cannot come up with a text that is a) significantly different and b) does not turn the whole paragraph into a incomprehensible set of conditionals, so I prefer to hang on to text for "Informational". Also, and more to the point that we should not obsolete the FYI series by simply forgetting to write about it: the existence of FYIs is recognized as a sub series in section 3.1 that relates to the information in the 1st page header (page 4 of version 4 of the id): <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. Thanks for the reminder... I had to doublecheck :-) --Olaf ----------------------------------------------------------- Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs Science Park 140, http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam NB: The street at which our offices are located has been renamed to the above. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090113/da6d852f/PGP.bin
- [rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boi… John C Klensin
- [rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boi… Olaf Kolkman
- [rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boi… John C Klensin
- [rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boi… Olaf Kolkman
- [rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boi… Olaf Kolkman
- [rfc-i] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boi… John C Klensin
- [rfc-i] [IAB] Wrapup of Fwd: Comment on headers-a… Olaf Kolkman