Re: New ID-Checklist to replace ID-nits (fwd)

["Acee Lindem" <acee at redback.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen at lucent.com>
To: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas at netcore.fi>; <iesg at ietf.org>
Cc: <wgchairs at ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: New ID-Checklist to replace ID-nits (fwd)


> Pekka writes:
> > 
> > I don't think I've seen any answer from the Powers that Be on whether 
> > RFC2026 is still a "good enough" boilerplate esp. for old work.
> > 
> > Please comment on that.
> > 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:19:21 +0300 (EEST)
> > From: Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>
> > To: wgchairs at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: New ID-Checklist to replace ID-nits (fwd)
> > 
> > On Fri, 21 May 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > > I assume most of you saw this message on ietf-announce.
> > > But since it's especially important to the WG chairs, I'm forwarding it to 
> > > you directly.
> > 
> > One critical question: are boilerplates based on RFC2026 still OK?
> > 
> > I mean, there are a lot of drafts, work-in-progress, which have been
> > created with old tools supporting RFC2026 only, and changing the tools
> > during the process could take a bit of time..
> > 
> 
> My personal opinion is that I would certainly encourage that every new 
> revision of an I-D switches to the new boiler-plate as per RFC3667/8.

Bert,

Is there a link to a boiler-plate or are you referring to 

http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html

An actual ASCII boiler-plate might save people some time by gathering
all the required statements in one place. 

Thanks,
Acee 

> 
> Bert
>