idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits51469/draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-04.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 597. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 608. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 615. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 621. 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 (November 25, 2008) is 4924 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC3978' is defined on line 470, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3979' is defined on line 475, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4748' is defined on line 449, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4749' is defined on line 452, 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 1150 (Obsoleted by RFC 6360) -- 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 4748 (ref. 'RFC3978') (Obsoleted by RFC 5378) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) -- Duplicate reference: RFC4748, mentioned in 'RFC4748', was also mentioned in 'RFC3978'. -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4748 (Obsoleted by RFC 5378) -- Duplicate reference: RFC4749, mentioned in 'RFC4749', was also mentioned in 'RFC3979'. -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5143 (Obsoleted by RFC 4842) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 18 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: May 29, 2009 November 25, 2008 9 On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates 10 draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-04 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 May 29, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 59 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 60 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 61 Appendix A. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 11 62 Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 63 Appendix C. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 64 C.1. version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 65 C.2. version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 66 C.3. version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 67 C.4. version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 69 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14 71 1. Introduction 73 Previously RFCs (e.g. [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that 74 were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also 75 contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the 76 document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document 77 interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents. 79 As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been 80 increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to 81 make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it 82 describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as 83 part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs 84 that may have had a very different review and approval process. 85 Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving 86 text of "Notes" included in the published RFC. 88 With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844] it is 89 appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of 90 standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure 91 better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the 92 review and approval processes defined for each stream. 94 This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC 95 boilerplate structure, and provides a comprehensive approach to 96 updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC 97 document and content status. Most of the historical structure 98 information is collected from [RFC2223]. 100 The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as 101 practically possible after the document has been approved for 102 publication. 104 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards 106 Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet standards- 107 related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet 108 standards-related documents. 110 The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards 111 Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing 112 and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other 113 standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are 114 reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF 115 Stream. 117 Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not 118 reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, congestion control, 119 or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. They have also 120 not been subject to approval by the Internet Engineering Steering 121 Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide last call. Therefore, the IETF 122 disclaims, for any of the non-IETF Stream documents, any knowledge of 123 the fitness of those RFCs for any purpose. 125 Refer to [RFC2026], [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis], and [RFC4844] and 126 their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC 127 streams. 129 3. RFC Structural Elements 131 3.1. The title page header 133 An RFC title page header can be described as follows: 135 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 136 137 Request for Comments: [] 138 [ ] [more author info as appropriate] 139 [:] 140 Category: 141 143 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 145 For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows: 147 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 148 Network Working Group T. Dierks 149 Request for Comments: 4346 Independent 150 Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla 151 Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc. 152 April 2006 154 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 156 The right column contains author name and affiliation information as 157 well as RFC publication date. Conventions and restrictions for these 158 elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual stream 159 definitions. 161 This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left 162 column: 164 This describes the area where the work originates. 165 Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group. 166 "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's 167 IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and 168 whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got 169 together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols 170 [RFC0003]. Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working Group" in 171 order to indicate the originating stream. 173 The is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in 174 [RFC4844] and its successors. At the time of this publication, 175 the streams, and therefore the possible entries are: 177 * Internet Engineering Task Force 179 * Internet Architecture Board 181 * Internet Research Task Force 183 * Independent 185 Request for Comments: This indicates the RFC number, 186 assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This 187 element is unchanged. 189 Some document categories are also 190 labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as 191 appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the 192 documents number within that series. Currently, there are 193 subseries for BCPs [RFC2026], STDs[RFC1311], and FYIs [RFC1150]. 194 These subseries numbers may appear in several RFCs. For example, 195 when a new RFC obsoletes or updates an old one, the same subseries 196 number is used. Also, several RFCs may be assigned the same 197 subseries number: a single STD, for example, may be composed of 198 several RFCs, each of which will bear the same STD number. This 199 element is unchanged. 201 [:] Some relations between RFCs in the 202 series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new 203 RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two 204 relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223]. 205 Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]). 206 Other types of relations may be defined elsewhere. 208 Category: This indicates the initial RFC document 209 category of the publication. These are defined in [RFC2026]. 210 Currently, this is always one of: Standards Track, Best Current 211 Practice, Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element 212 is unchanged. 214 3.2. The Status of this Memo 216 The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC, 217 including the distribution statement. This text is included 218 irrespective of the source stream of the RFC. 220 From now on, the "Status of This Memo" will start with a single 221 sentence describing the status. It will also include a statement 222 describing the stream-specific review of the material (which is 223 stream-dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar 224 as it clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader 225 an understanding of how to consider its content. 227 The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a 228 single sentence, clearly standing out. It depends on the category of 229 the document. 231 This memo is an Internet Standards Track document. 233 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice 235 This memo is not an Internet Standards Track specification; . 238 For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of 239 RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for . For example, with an Informational 241 document this could read "it is published for informational 242 purposes". 244 The second paragraph contains text as follows that is specific to the 245 initial category: 247 Standards Track: "This document specifies an Internet standards 248 track protocol for the Internet community. Please see the 249 "Updates to the RFC" section of this document for information on 250 where to find the status of this document and the availability of 251 errata for this memo." 253 Best Current Practice: "This document specifies an Internet Best 254 Current Practices for the Internet Community. Please see the 255 "Updates to the RFC" section of this document for information on 256 where to find the status of this document and the availability of 257 errata for this memo." 259 Experimental: "This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the 260 Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet 261 standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement 262 are requested." 264 Informational: "This memo provides information for the Internet 265 community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any 266 kind. " 268 Historic: "This memo defines a Historic Document for the Internet 269 community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." 271 Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate 272 the initial status of a document. During their lifetime documents 273 can change status to e.g. Historic. This cannot be reflected in the 274 document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered 275 to in Section 3.4. 277 The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a 278 paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has 279 received. This is defined on a per-stream basis. From now on, these 280 paragraphs will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions. 282 The following texts may be updated if the stream definitions are 283 updated, but initial paragraphs for the existing streams are: 285 IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 286 Task Force (IETF). " 288 If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an 289 additional sentence should be added: "This document represents a 290 consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review 291 and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering 292 Steering Group." 294 IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture 295 Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed 296 valuable to provide for permanent record. This document has been 297 approved for publication by the IAB and is therefore not a 298 candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see section 299 Section 2 of RFCXXXX." 301 IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research 302 Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- 303 related research and development activities. These results might 304 not be suitable for deployment. This document has been approved 305 for publication by the IRSG. It is not a product of the IETF and 306 is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; 307 see section Section 2 of RFCXXXX." 309 In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the 310 IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the 311 Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force 312 (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual 313 opinion(s) of one or more members of the Research 314 Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)". 316 Independent Stream: "This document is a contribution to the RFC 317 Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has 318 chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no 319 statement about its value for implementation or deployment. It is 320 therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see 321 section Section 2 of RFCXXXX." 323 3.3. Additional Notes 325 Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe 326 additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status 327 of This Memo". 329 While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal 330 of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear 331 to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly 332 exceptional. 334 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs 336 RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor 337 is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural 338 element. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted 339 using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or 340 may not require documentation in an RFC. 342 Currently the following structural information is available or is 343 being considered for inclusion in RFCs 345 Copyright Notice A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78 346 [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78 347 and BCP79 [BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined by 348 those BCPs. 350 ISSN The International Standard Serial Number [ISO3297]: ISSN 2070- 351 1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title 352 regardless of language or country in which it is published. The 353 ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique 354 identification of a serial publication. 356 Updates to the RFC A reference identifying where more information 357 about the document can be found. This may include information 358 whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's 359 originating stream, a listing of possible errata, and information 360 on how to submit errata as described in 361 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. 363 4. Security considerations 365 This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an 366 RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause 367 interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems. 369 5. IANA considerations 371 None. 373 6. RFC Editor Considerations 375 The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the 376 RFC series. To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual 377 [RFC-style]. In this memo we mention a few explicit structural 378 elements that the RFC editor needs to maintain. The conventions for 379 the content and use of all current and future elements are to be 380 documented in the style manual. 382 Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one 383 method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated. The RFC 384 editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and 385 interfaces. 387 [The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards 388 editing this document and can be removed before publication] 390 The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be 391 removed before publication as an RFC. This one and Appendix C. 393 This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be 394 implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit 395 tracker and the rfc-erratum portal. 397 The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo. 399 References [RFC-style], [BCP78] and [BCP79] have been constructed. 400 Please bring these in line with RFC Editorial conventions. 402 In section Section 3.4: For the final publication, it should be 403 warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity. 405 7. References 407 7.1. Normative References 409 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 410 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 412 [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis] 413 Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for 414 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", 415 draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-04 (work in progress), 416 October 2008. 418 7.2. Informative References 420 [ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and 421 documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and 422 description. , "Information and documentation - 423 International standard serial number (ISSN)" , 09 2007 . 425 [RFC0003] Crocker, S. , "Documentation conventions" , RFC 3 , 426 April 1969 . 428 [RFC1311] Postel, J. , "Introduction to the STD Notes" , RFC 1311 429 , March 1992 . 431 [RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds , "FYI on FYI: Introduction 432 to the FYI Notes" , RFC 1150 , March 1990 . 434 [RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds , "Instructions to RFC 435 Authors" , RFC 2223 , October 1997 . 437 [RFC2629] Rose, M. , "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML" , RFC 2629 438 , June 1999 . 440 [RFC3978] Bradner, S. , "IETF Rights in Contributions" , BCP 78 , 441 RFC 3978 , March 2005 . 443 [RFC3979] Bradner, S. , "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF 444 Technology" , BCP 79 , RFC 3979 , March 2005 . 446 [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board , "The RFC 447 Series and RFC Editor" , RFC 4844 , July 2007 . 449 [RFC4748] Bradner, S. , "RFC 3978 Update to Recognize the IETF 450 Trust" , BCP 78 , RFC 4748 , October 2006 . 452 [RFC4749] Sollaud, A. , "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio 453 Codec" , RFC 4749 , October 2006 . 455 [RFC5143] Malis, A. , Brayley, J. , Shirron, J. , Martini, L. , 456 and S. Vogelsang , "Synchronous Optical Network/ 457 Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit 458 Emulation Service over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation" , 459 RFC 5143 , February 2008 . 461 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process] 462 Ginoza, S. , Hagens, A. , and R. Braden , "RFC Editor 463 Proposal for Handling RFC Errata" , 464 draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02 (work in progress) , 465 May 2008 . 467 [BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. , "IETF Rights in Contributions" , 468 BCP 78 , October 2006 . 470 [RFC3978]and[RFC4748] 472 [BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual 473 Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007. 475 [RFC3979]and[RFC4749] 477 [RFC-style] 478 RFC Editor, "RFC Style Guide", 479 . 481 Appendix A. IAB members at time of approval 483 The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in 484 alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart 485 Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba, 486 Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave 487 Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex- 488 officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive 489 Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair. 491 Appendix B. Acknowledgements 493 Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza, 494 and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration. 496 Various people have made suggestions that improved the document. 497 Among them are: Lars Eggert and Alfred Hoenes. 499 This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. 501 Appendix C. Document Editing Details 503 [To Be Removed before publication] 505 $Id: headers-boilerplates.xml 53 2008-11-25 14:16:08Z olaf $ 507 C.1. version 00->01 509 Fixed the header so it appropriately shows that the document updates 510 RFC 4844, 2223. And added a link to 3932-bis that should appear in 511 tandem with this publication. 513 Introduced the "Other structural information in RFCs" section and 514 moved the ISSN number from the front matter to this section. The 515 "Other structural information in RFCs" intends to give very rough 516 guidance providing the RFC editor with sufficient freedom to move 517 pieces around and edit them to please the eye and mind. 519 Modified the last sentence 3rd paragraph of the Status of this memo 520 section for the IRTF Stream in accordance to a suggestion by Aaron 521 Falk; Indicating that review happened by the IRSG and not indicating 522 that review did not happen by the IESG. 524 Introduced the square brackets around the in the 525 header. To highlight this is an optional element. 527 The definition of the "Clarifies" relation has been taken out. There 528 are arguments that introducing the relation needs a bit more thought 529 and is better done by a separate document. 531 Provided the RFC Editor with responsibility to maintain several text 532 pieces. 534 In Section 3.2 some modifications were applied to the text. 536 The contains the full name of the stream. 538 RFC2223 and 4844 moved to the informative reference section. 539 Although I am not sure if those are not normative. Guidance!!! 541 C.2. version 01->02 543 Fixed some editorial nits and missing references. 545 Clarified that the status and category are initial. 547 Added boilerplate text for documents that are initially published as 548 Historic. 550 Added members of IAB, and removed those members from acknowledgements 552 Added References to BCP78 and BCP79. The exact formatting of those 553 references may need to be done by the RFC editor. 555 Added text to recognize occurrences of variations of "Obsolete" and 556 "Update" 558 C.3. version 02->03 560 Stray language in the "IAB members at time of approval" section 561 removed. 563 C.4. version 03->04 565 Addressed the minor nit from Brian Carpenter. 567 Reference to style guide stet to styleguide.html 569 Authors' Addresses 571 Leslie Daigle (editor) 573 Email: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com 575 Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) 577 Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl 579 Internet Architecture Board 581 Email: iab@iab.org 583 Full Copyright Statement 585 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 587 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 588 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 589 retain all their rights. 591 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 592 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 593 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 594 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 595 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 596 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 597 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 599 Intellectual Property 601 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 602 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 603 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 604 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 605 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 606 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 607 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 608 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 610 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 611 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 612 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 613 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 614 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 615 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 617 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 618 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 619 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 620 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 621 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.