idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits52962/draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 and authors 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 (January 16, 2009) is 4872 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC3979' is defined on line 504, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4749' is defined on line 476, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5378' is defined on line 499, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis has been published as RFC 5742 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3 (Obsoleted by RFC 10)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 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) -- Duplicate reference: RFC4749, mentioned in 'RFC4749', was also mentioned in 'RFC3979'. -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5143 (Obsoleted by RFC 4842) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 10 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: July 20, 2009 January 16, 2009 9 On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates 10 draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-05 12 Status of this Memo 14 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 15 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 20, 2009. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. 47 Abstract 49 RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title 50 page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements. 51 This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect 52 current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, 53 this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source 54 of RFC creation and review. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3. RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3.1. The title page header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3.2. The Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 3.2.1. Paragraph 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 3.2.2. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 3.2.3. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 3.2.4. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 6. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boileplates . . . 11 76 A.1. IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 A.2. IETF Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 A.3. IAB Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 79 A.4. IAB Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80 A.5. IRTF Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 81 Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 16 82 Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 83 Appendix D. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 84 D.1. version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 85 D.2. version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 86 D.3. version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 87 D.4. version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 88 D.5. version 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 89 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 91 1. Introduction 93 Previously RFCs (e.g. [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that 94 were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also 95 contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the 96 document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document 97 interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents. 99 As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been 100 increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to 101 make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it 102 describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as 103 part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs 104 that may have had a very different review and approval process. 105 Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving 106 text of "Notes" included in the published RFC. 108 With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844] it is 109 appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of 110 standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure 111 better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the 112 review and approval processes defined for each stream. 114 This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC 115 boilerplate structure, and provides a comprehensive approach to 116 updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC 117 document and content status. Most of the historical structure 118 information is collected from [RFC2223]. 120 The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as 121 practically possible after the document has been approved for 122 publication. 124 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards 126 Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet standards- 127 related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet 128 standards-related documents. 130 The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards 131 Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing 132 and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other 133 standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are 134 reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF 135 Stream. 137 Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not 138 reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, congestion control, 139 or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. They have also 140 not been subject to approval by the Internet Engineering Steering 141 Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide last call. Therefore, the IETF 142 disclaims, for any of the non-IETF Stream documents, any knowledge of 143 the fitness of those RFCs for any purpose. 145 Refer to [RFC2026], [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis], and [RFC4844] and 146 their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC 147 streams. 149 3. RFC Structural Elements 151 3.1. The title page header 153 An RFC title page header can be described as follows: 155 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 156 157 Request for Comments: [] 158 [ ] [more author info as appropriate] 159 [:] 160 Category: 161 163 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 165 For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows: 167 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 168 Network Working Group T. Dierks 169 Request for Comments: 4346 Independent 170 Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla 171 Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc. 172 April 2006 174 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 176 The right column contains author name and affiliation information as 177 well as RFC publication date. Conventions and restrictions for these 178 elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual stream 179 definitions. 181 This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left 182 column: 184 This describes the area where the work originates. 185 Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group. 186 "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's 187 IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and 188 whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got 189 together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols 190 [RFC0003]. Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working Group" in 191 order to indicate the originating stream. 193 The is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in 194 [RFC4844] and its successors. At the time of this publication, 195 the streams, and therefore the possible entries are: 197 * Internet Engineering Task Force 199 * Internet Architecture Board 201 * Internet Research Task Force 203 * Independent 205 Request for Comments: This indicates the RFC number, 206 assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This 207 element is unchanged. 209 Some document categories are also 210 labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as 211 appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the 212 documents number within that series. Currently, there are 213 subseries for BCPs [RFC2026], STDs[RFC1311], and FYIs [RFC1150]. 214 These subseries numbers may appear in several RFCs. For example, 215 when a new RFC obsoletes or updates an old one, the same subseries 216 number is used. Also, several RFCs may be assigned the same 217 subseries number: a single STD, for example, may be composed of 218 several RFCs, each of which will bear the same STD number. This 219 element is unchanged. 221 [:] Some relations between RFCs in the 222 series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new 223 RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two 224 relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223]. 225 Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]). 226 Other types of relations may be defined elsewhere. 228 Category: This indicates the initial RFC document 229 category of the publication. These are defined in [RFC2026]. 230 Currently, this is always one of: Standards Track, Best Current 231 Practice, Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element 232 is unchanged. 234 3.2. The Status of this Memo 236 The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC, 237 including the distribution statement. This text is included 238 irrespective of the source stream of the RFC. 240 From now on, the "Status of This Memo" will start with a single 241 sentence describing the status. It will also include a statement 242 describing the stream-specific review of the material (which is 243 stream-dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar 244 as it clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader 245 an understanding of how to consider its content. 247 3.2.1. Paragraph 1 249 The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a 250 single sentence, clearly standing out. It depends on the category of 251 the document. 253 For 'Standards Track' documents: This is an Internet Standards Track 254 document. 256 For 'Best Current Practices' documents: This memo documents an 257 Internet Best Current Practice 259 For other categories This document is not an Internet Standards 260 Track specification; . 262 For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of 263 RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for . Initial values are: 266 Informational: it is published for informational purposes." 268 Historic: it is published for historical record." 270 Experimental: it is published for examination, experimental 271 implementation, and evaluation." 273 3.2.2. Paragraph 2 275 The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a 276 paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has 277 received. This is defined on a per-stream basis, although there is a 278 specific structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about 279 review processes and document types. From now on, these paragraphs 280 will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial text, for 281 current streams, is provided below. 283 The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial 284 document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or 285 Historic the second paragraph opens with: 287 Experimental: "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for 288 the Internet community. Discussion and suggestions for 289 improvement are requested." 291 Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the 292 Internet community. 294 The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values 295 and may be updated by stream definition document updates. 297 IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 298 Task Force (IETF). " 300 If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an 301 additional sentence should be added: "It represents a consensus of 302 the IETF community. It has received public review and has been 303 approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering 304 Group (IESG)." 306 IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture 307 Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed 308 valuable to provide for permanent record. 310 IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research 311 Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- 312 related research and development activities. These results might 313 not be suitable for deployment. 315 In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the 316 IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the 317 Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force 318 (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual 319 opinion(s) of one or more members of the Research 320 Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)". 322 Independent Stream: "This is a contribution to the RFC Series, 323 independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen 324 to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement 325 about its value for implementation or deployment. 327 For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is 328 added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for 329 publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB", 330 "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of 331 Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFCXXXX." 333 For IETF stream documents a similar reference is added: "Further 334 information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2 335 of RFCXXXX." for BCP and Standard Track docments; "Not all documents 336 approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet 337 Standards see Section 2 of RFCXXXX." for all other categories. 339 3.2.3. Paragraph 3 341 The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant 342 information can be found: "Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' 343 section of this document for information on where to find the status 344 of this document and the availability of errata for this memo." the 345 exact wording is subject to change by the RFC Editor. 347 3.2.4. Noteworthy 349 Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate 350 the initial status of a document. During their lifetime documents 351 can change status to e.g. Historic. This cannot be reflected in the 352 document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered 353 to in Section 3.4. 355 3.3. Additional Notes 357 Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe 358 additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status 359 of This Memo". 361 While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal 362 of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear 363 to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly 364 exceptional. 366 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs 368 RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor 369 is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural 370 element. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted 371 using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or 372 may not require documentation in an RFC. 374 Currently the following structural information is available or is 375 being considered for inclusion in RFCs 376 Copyright Notice A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78 377 [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78 378 and BCP79 [BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined by 379 those BCPs. 381 ISSN The International Standard Serial Number [ISO3297]: ISSN 2070- 382 1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title 383 regardless of language or country in which it is published. The 384 ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique 385 identification of a serial publication. 387 Updates to the RFC A reference identifying where more information 388 about the document can be found. This may include information 389 whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's 390 originating stream, a listing of possible errata, and information 391 on how to submit errata as described in 392 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. 394 4. Security considerations 396 This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an 397 RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause 398 interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems. 400 5. IANA considerations 402 None. 404 6. RFC Editor Considerations 406 The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the 407 RFC series. To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual 408 [RFC-style]. In this memo we mention a few explicit structural 409 elements that the RFC editor needs to maintain. The conventions for 410 the content and use of all current and future elements are to be 411 documented in the style manual. 413 Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one 414 method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated. The RFC 415 editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and 416 interfaces. 418 [The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards 419 editing this document and can be removed before publication] 420 The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be 421 removed before publication as an RFC. This one and Appendix D. 423 This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be 424 implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit 425 tracker and the rfc-erratum portal. 427 The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo. 429 References [RFC-style], [BCP78] and [BCP79] have been constructed. 430 Please bring these in line with RFC Editorial conventions. 432 In section Section 3.4: For the final publication, it should be 433 warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity. 435 7. References 437 7.1. Normative References 439 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 440 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 442 [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis] 443 Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for 444 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", 445 draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06 (work in progress), 446 November 2008. 448 7.2. Informative References 450 [ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and 451 documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and 452 description. , "Information and documentation - 453 International standard serial number (ISSN)" , 09 2007 . 455 [RFC0003] Crocker, S. , "Documentation conventions" , RFC 3 , 456 April 1969 . 458 [RFC1311] Postel, J. , "Introduction to the STD Notes" , RFC 1311 459 , March 1992 . 461 [RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds , "FYI on FYI: Introduction 462 to the FYI Notes" , RFC 1150 , March 1990 . 464 [RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds , "Instructions to RFC 465 Authors" , RFC 2223 , October 1997 . 467 [RFC2629] Rose, M. , "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML" , RFC 2629 468 , June 1999 . 470 [RFC3979] Bradner, S. , "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF 471 Technology" , BCP 79 , RFC 3979 , March 2005 . 473 [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board , "The RFC 474 Series and RFC Editor" , RFC 4844 , July 2007 . 476 [RFC4749] Sollaud, A. , "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio 477 Codec" , RFC 4749 , October 2006 . 479 [RFC5143] Malis, A. , Brayley, J. , Shirron, J. , Martini, L. , 480 and S. Vogelsang , "Synchronous Optical Network/ 481 Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit 482 Emulation Service over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation" , 483 RFC 5143 , February 2008 . 485 [RFC5378] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras , "Rights Contributors 486 Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 , RFC 5378 , 487 November 2008 . 489 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process] 490 Ginoza, S. , Hagens, A. , and R. Braden , "RFC Editor 491 Proposal for Handling RFC Errata" , 492 draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02 (work in progress) , 493 May 2008 . 495 [BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed. , "Rights 496 Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 , 497 November 2008 . 499 [RFC5378] 501 [BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual 502 Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007. 504 [RFC3979]and[RFC4749] 506 [RFC-style] 507 RFC Editor, "RFC Style Guide", 508 . 510 Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boileplates 511 A.1. IETF Standards Track 513 The boilerplate for a Standards Track document that (by definition) 514 has been subject to an IETF consensus call 516 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 517 Status of this Memo 519 This is an Internet Standards Track document. 521 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force 522 (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF community. It has 523 received public review and has been approved for publication by 524 the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on 525 the Internet Standards Track is available in 526 Section 2 528 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 529 Status of this Memo 531 This is an Internet Standards Track document. 533 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force 534 (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF community. It has 535 received public review and has been approved for publication by 536 the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on 537 the Internet Standards Track is available in 539 A.2. IETF Experimental 541 The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been subject to 542 an IETF consensus call 544 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 545 Status of this Memo 547 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 548 has been published for Experimental purposes. 550 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet 551 community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are 552 requested. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 553 Task Force (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF 554 community. It has received public review and has been approved 555 for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group 556 (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for 557 any level of Internet Standards see 558 Section 2 560 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 561 Status of this Memo 563 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 564 has been published for Experimental purposes. 566 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet 567 community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are 568 requested. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 569 Task Force (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF 570 community. It has received public review and has been approved 571 for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group 572 (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for 573 any level of Internet Standards see 575 A.3. IAB Informational 577 The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document 579 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 580 Status of this Memo 582 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 583 has been published for Informational purposes. 585 This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board 586 (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable 587 to provide for permanent record. Documents approved for 588 publication by IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet 589 Standard; see 590 Section 2 592 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 593 Status of this Memo 595 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 596 has been published for Informational purposes. 598 This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board 599 (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable 600 to provide for permanent record. Documents approved for 601 publication by IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet 602 Standard; see 604 A.4. IAB Informational 606 The boilerplate for an Informational RFC Editor document 608 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 609 Status of this Memo 611 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 612 has been published for Informational purposes. 614 This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any 615 other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this 616 document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value 617 for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for 618 publication by RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of 619 Internet Standard; see 620 Section 2 622 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 623 Status of this Memo 625 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 626 has been published for Informational purposes. 628 This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any 629 other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this 630 document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value 631 for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for 632 publication by RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of 633 Internet Standard; see 635 A.5. IRTF Experimental 637 The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been produced 638 by the IRTF and for which there was no RG consensus. This variation 639 is the most verbose boilerplate in the current set. 641 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 642 Status of this Memo 644 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 645 has been published for Experimental purposes. 647 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet 648 community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are 649 requested. This document is a product of the Internet Research 650 Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- 651 related research and development activities. These results might 652 not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the individual 653 opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of 654 the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for 655 publication by IRTF are not a candidate for any level of Internet 656 Standard; see 657 Section 2 659 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 660 Status of this Memo 662 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 663 has been published for Experimental purposes. 665 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet 666 community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are 667 requested. This document is a product of the Internet Research 668 Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- 669 related research and development activities. These results might 670 not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the individual 671 opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of 672 the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for 673 publication by IRTF are not a candidate for any level of Internet 674 Standard; see 676 Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval 678 The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in 679 alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart 680 Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba, 681 Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave 682 Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex- 683 officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive 684 Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair. 686 Appendix C. Acknowledgements 688 Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza, 689 and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration. 691 Various people have made suggestions that improved the document. 692 Among them are: Lars Eggert, Alfred Hoenes, and Joe Touch. 694 This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. 696 Appendix D. Document Editing Details 698 [To Be Removed before publication] 700 $Id: headers-boilerplates.xml 58 2009-01-16 07:38:34Z olaf $ 702 D.1. version 00->01 704 Fixed the header so it appropriately shows that the document updates 705 RFC 4844, 2223. And added a link to 3932-bis that should appear in 706 tandem with this publication. 708 Introduced the "Other structural information in RFCs" section and 709 moved the ISSN number from the front matter to this section. The 710 "Other structural information in RFCs" intends to give very rough 711 guidance providing the RFC editor with sufficient freedom to move 712 pieces around and edit them to please the eye and mind. 714 Modified the last sentence 3rd paragraph of the Status of this memo 715 section for the IRTF Stream in accordance to a suggestion by Aaron 716 Falk; Indicating that review happened by the IRSG and not indicating 717 that review did not happen by the IESG. 719 Introduced the square brackets around the in the 720 header. To highlight this is an optional element. 722 The definition of the "Clarifies" relation has been taken out. There 723 are arguments that introducing the relation needs a bit more thought 724 and is better done by a separate document. 726 Provided the RFC Editor with responsibility to maintain several text 727 pieces. 729 In Section 3.2 some modifications were applied to the text. 731 The contains the full name of the stream. 733 RFC2223 and 4844 moved to the informative reference section. 734 Although I am not sure if those are not normative. Guidance!!! 736 D.2. version 01->02 738 Fixed some editorial nits and missing references. 740 Clarified that the status and category are initial. 742 Added boilerplate text for documents that are initially published as 743 Historic. 745 Added members of IAB, and removed those members from acknowledgements 747 Added References to BCP78 and BCP79. The exact formatting of those 748 references may need to be done by the RFC editor. 750 Added text to recognize occurrences of variations of "Obsolete" and 751 "Update" 753 D.3. version 02->03 755 Stray language in the "IAB members at time of approval" section 756 removed. 758 D.4. version 03->04 760 Addressed the minor nit from Brian Carpenter. 762 Reference to style guide stet to styleguide.html 764 D.5. version 04->05 766 References updated to reflect BCP78 being updated 768 Submitted under new boilerplate 769 Rewording of boilerplate material based on rfc-interest discussion 770 starting with http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/ 771 2008-December/001078.html 773 Added examples in Appendix A 775 Authors' Addresses 777 Leslie Daigle (editor) 779 Email: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com 781 Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) 783 Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl 785 Internet Architecture Board 787 Email: iab@iab.org