idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits50833/draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 17. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 498. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 509. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 516. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 522. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4844, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC4844, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2006-05-23) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 6, 2008) is 4974 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC3978' is defined on line 405, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis has been published as RFC 5742 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3 (Obsoleted by RFC 10) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2223 (Obsoleted by RFC 7322) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2629 (Obsoleted by RFC 7749) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3978 (Obsoleted by RFC 5378) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 13 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group L. Daigle, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft O. Kolkman, Ed. 4 Updates: 4844, 2223 5 (if approved) Internet Architecture Board 6 Intended status: Informational (IAB) 7 Expires: April 9, 2009 October 6, 2008 9 On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates 10 draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-01 12 Status of this Memo 14 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 15 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 16 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 17 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 21 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 22 Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 25 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 26 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 27 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 9, 2009. 37 Abstract 39 RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title 40 page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements. 41 This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect 42 current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, 43 this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source 44 of RFC creation and review. 46 Table of Contents 48 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 3. RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 51 3.1. The title page header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 3.2. The Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 53 3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 54 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 8 55 4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 56 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 57 6. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 58 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 59 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 60 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 61 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 62 Appendix B. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 63 B.1. version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 64 B.1.1. open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 65 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 66 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13 68 1. Introduction 70 Previously RFCs (e.g. [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that 71 were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also 72 contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the 73 document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document 74 interacts with IETF standard track documents. 76 As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been 77 increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to 78 make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it 79 describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as 80 part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs 81 that may have had a very different review and approval process. 82 Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving 83 text of "Notes" included in the published RFC. 85 With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844] it is 86 appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of 87 standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure 88 better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the 89 review and approval processes defined for each stream. 91 This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC 92 boilerplate structure, and provides a comprehensive approach to 93 updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC 94 document and content status. Most of the historical structure 95 information is collected from [RFC2223]. 97 The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as 98 practically possible after the document has been approved for 99 publication. 101 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards 103 Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet standards- 104 related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet 105 standards-related documents. 107 The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards 108 Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing 109 and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other 110 standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are 111 reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF 112 Stream. 114 Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not 115 reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, congestion control, 116 or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. They have also 117 not been subject to IESG approval, including an IETF-wide last call. 118 Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF Stream 119 documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any 120 purpose. 122 Refer to [RFC2026], [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis], and [RFC4844] and 123 their successors for current details of IETF process and RFC streams. 125 3. RFC Structural Elements 127 3.1. The title page header 129 An RFC title page header can be described as follows: 131 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 132 133 Request for Comments: [] 134 [ ] [more author info as appropriate] 135 [:] 136 Category: 137 139 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 141 For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows: 143 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 144 Network Working Group T. Dierks 145 Request for Comments: 4346 Independent 146 Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla 147 Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc. 148 April 2006 150 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 152 The right column contains author name and affiliation information as 153 well as RFC publication date. Conventions and restrictions for these 154 elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual stream 155 definitions. 157 This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left 158 column: 160 This describes the area where the work originates. 161 Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group. 162 "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's 163 IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and 164 whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got 165 together to discuss, design and document proposed 166 protocols[RFC0003]. Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working 167 Group" in order to indicate the originating stream. 169 The is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in 170 [RFC4844] and its successors. At the time of this publication, 171 the streams, and therefore the possible entries are: 173 * Internet Engineering Task Force 175 * Internet Architecture Board 177 * Internet Research Task Force 179 * Independent 181 Request for Comments: This indicates the RFC number, 182 assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This 183 element is unchanged. 185 Some document categories are also 186 labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as 187 appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the 188 documents number within that series. Currently, there are 189 subseries for BCPs, STDs and FYIs. These subseries numbers may 190 appear in several RFCs. For example, when a new RFC updates an 191 old one, the same subseries number is used. Also, several RFCs 192 may be assigned the same subseries number: a single STD, for 193 example, may be composed of several RFCs, each of which will bear 194 the same STD number. This element is unchanged. 196 [:] Some relations between RFCs in the 197 series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new 198 RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two 199 relationships are defined "Updates" and "Obsoletes". Other types 200 of relations may be defined elsewhere. 202 Category: This indicates the RFC document category of the 203 publication. These are defined in [RFC2026]. Currently, this is 204 always one of: Standards Track, Best Current Practice, 205 Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element is 206 unchanged. 208 3.2. The Status of this Memo 210 The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC, 211 including the distribution statement. This text is included 212 irrespective of the source stream of the RFC. 214 From now on, the "Status of This Memo" will start with a single line 215 describing the status. It will also include a statement describing 216 the stream-specific review of the material (which is stream- 217 dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar as it 218 clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader an 219 understanding of how to consider its content. 221 The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a 222 single line, clearly standing out. It depends on the category of the 223 document. 225 This memo is an Internet Standards Track document. 227 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice 229 This memo is not an Internet Standards Track specifiation, . 232 For Informational, Experimental and other future categories of RFC 233 editor will maintain an appropriate text for . For example, with an Informational document this 235 could read "It is published for informational purposes". 237 This indicates the RFC number, assigned by the RFC Editor upon 238 publication of the document. This element is unchanged. 240 The second paragraph contains category-specific text as follows: 242 Standards Track: "This document specifies an Internet standards 243 track protocol for the Internet community. Please see the 244 "Updates to the RFC" section of this document for information on 245 where to find the status of this protocol and the availability of 246 errata for this memo." 248 Best Current Practice: "This document specifies an Internet Best 249 Current Practices for the Internet Community. Please see the 250 "Updates to the RFC" section of this document for information on 251 where to find the status of this protocol and the availability of 252 errata for this memo." 254 Experimental: "This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the 255 Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet 256 standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement 257 are requested." 259 Informational: "This memo provides information for the Internet 260 community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any 261 kind. " 263 The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a 264 paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has 265 received. This is defined on a per-stream basis. From now on, these 266 paragraphs will be defined as part of RFC stream definition. 268 The following texts may be updated if the stream definitions are 269 updated, but initial paragraphs for the existing streams are: 271 IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 272 Task Force (IETF). " 274 If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an 275 additional sentence should be added: "This document represents a 276 consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review 277 and has been approved for publication by the IESG." 279 IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture 280 Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed 281 valuable to provide for permanent record. This document has been 282 approved for publication by the IAB and is therefore not a 283 candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see section 284 Section 2 of RFCXXXX." 286 IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research 287 Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- 288 related research and development activities. These results might 289 not be suitable for deployment. This document has been approved 290 for publication by the IRSG. It is not a product of the IETF and 291 is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; 292 see section Section 2 of RFCXXXX." 294 In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the 295 IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the 296 Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force 297 (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual 298 opinion(s) of one or more members of the Research 299 Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)". 301 Independent Stream: "This document is a contribution to the RFC 302 Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has 303 chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no 304 statement about its value for implementation or deployment. It is 305 therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see 306 section Section 2 of RFCXXXX." 308 3.3. Additional Notes 310 Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe 311 additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status 312 of This Memo". 314 While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal 315 of this exercise to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear 316 to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly 317 exceptional. 319 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs 321 RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor 322 is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural 323 element. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted 324 using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or 325 may not require documentation in an RFC. 327 Currently the following structural information is available in RFCs. 329 Copyright Notice A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78 and an 330 Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78 and BCP79. The 331 content of these statements are defined by those BCPs. 333 ISSN The International Standard Serial Number[ISO3297]: ISSN 2070- 334 1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title 335 regardless of language or country in which published. The ISSN 336 itself has no significance other than the unique identification of 337 a serial publication. 339 Updates to the RFC A reference identifying where more information 340 about the document can be found. This includes information wether 341 the RFC has been updated, obsoleted, or clarified, a listing of 342 possible errata, and information on how to submit errata as 343 described in [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. 345 4. Security considerations 347 This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an 348 RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause 349 interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems. 351 5. IANA considerations 353 None. 355 6. RFC Editor Considerations 357 The RFC Editor is responsibile for maintaining the consistency of the 358 RFC series. To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual 359 [insert reference]. In this memo we mention a few explicit 360 structural elements that the RFC editor needs to maintain. The 361 conventions for the content and use of all current and future 362 elements are to be documented in the style manual. 364 [The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards 365 editing this document and can be removed before publication] 367 The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be 368 removed before publication as an RFC. This one and Appendix B. 370 This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be 371 implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit 372 tracker and the rfc-erratum portal. 374 The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo. 376 7. References 378 7.1. Normative References 380 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 381 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 383 [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis] 384 Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for 385 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", 386 draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-01 (work in progress), 387 August 2008. 389 7.2. Informative References 391 [ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and 392 documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and 393 description., "Information and documentation - 394 International standard serial number (ISSN)", 09 2007. 396 [RFC0003] Crocker, S., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3, 397 April 1969. 399 [RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors", 400 RFC 2223, October 1997. 402 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, 403 June 1999. 405 [RFC3978] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, 406 RFC 3978, March 2005. 408 [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 409 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007. 411 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process] 412 Ginoza, S., Hagens, A., and R. Braden, "RFC Editor 413 Proposal for Handling RFC Errata", 414 draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02 (work in progress), 415 May 2008. 417 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 419 Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker and John Klensin 420 who provided background information and inspiration. 422 Various people have made suggestions that improved the document. 423 Among them are: Loa Andersson, Lars Eggert, Alfred Hines, Russ 424 Housley, and David Oran. 426 This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. 428 Appendix B. Document Editing Details 430 [To Be Removed before publication] 432 B.1. version 00->01 434 Fixed the header so it appropriatly shows that the document updates 435 RFC 4844, 2223. And added a link to 3932-bis that should appear in 436 tandem with this publication. 438 Introduced the "Other structural information in RFCs" section and 439 moved the ISSN number from the front matter to this section. The 440 "Other structural information in RFCs" intends to give very rough 441 guidance providing the RFC editor with sufficient freedom to move 442 pieces around and edit them to please the eye and mind. 444 Modified the last sentence 3rd paragraph of the Status of this memo 445 section for the IRTF Stream in accordance to a suggestion by Aaron 446 Falk; Indicating that review happend by the IRSG and not indicating 447 that review did not happen by the IESG. 449 Introduced the square brackets around the in the 450 header. To highlight this is an optional elelment. 452 The definition of the "Clarifies" relation has been taken out. There 453 are arguments that introducing the relation needs a bit more thought 454 and is better done by a seperate document. 456 Provided the RFC Editor with responsibility to maintain several text 457 pieces. 459 In Section 3.2 some modifications were applied to the text. 461 The contains the full name of the stream. 463 RFC2223 and 4844 moved to the informative reference section. 464 Although I am not sure if those are not normative. Guidance!!! 466 B.1.1. open issues 468 Does the RFC Editor wants to supply text with respect to the level of 469 review in Section 3.2 for the Independent Stream? 471 Authors' Addresses 473 Leslie Daigle (editor) 475 Email: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com 476 Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) 478 Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl 480 Internet Architecture Board 482 Email: iab@iab.org 484 Full Copyright Statement 486 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 488 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 489 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 490 retain all their rights. 492 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 493 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 494 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 495 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 496 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 497 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 498 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 500 Intellectual Property 502 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 503 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 504 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 505 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 506 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 507 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 508 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 509 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 511 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 512 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 513 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 514 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 515 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 516 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 518 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 519 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 520 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 521 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 522 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.