idnits 2.17.1 draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a License Notice according IETF Trust Provisions of 28 Dec 2009, Section 6.b.ii or Provisions of 12 Sep 2009 Section 6.b -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices. See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.) 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 (April 23, 2009) is 5453 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC5378' is defined on line 505, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3 (Obsoleted by RFC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 3979 (Obsoleted by RFC 8179) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5143 (Obsoleted by RFC 4842) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 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: October 25, 2009 April 23, 2009 9 On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates 10 draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08 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 October 25, 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 in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 43 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 44 and restrictions with respect to this document. 46 Abstract 48 RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title 49 page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements. 50 This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect 51 current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, 52 this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source 53 of RFC creation and review. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 3.1. The title page header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3.2. The Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 3.2.1. Paragraph 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 3.2.2. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 3.2.3. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 3.2.4. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 6. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates . . . 12 75 A.1. IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 A.2. IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . 13 77 A.3. IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 A.4. IAB Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 79 A.5. IRTF Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80 Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 15 81 Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 82 Appendix D. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 83 D.1. version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 84 D.2. version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 85 D.3. version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 86 D.4. version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 87 D.5. version 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 88 D.6. version 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 89 D.7. version 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 90 D.8. version 07->08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 91 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 93 1. Introduction 95 Previously RFCs (e.g. [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that 96 were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also 97 contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the 98 document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document 99 interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents. 101 As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been 102 increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to 103 make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it 104 describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as 105 part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs 106 that may have had a very different review and approval process. 107 Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving 108 text of "Notes" included in the published RFC. 110 With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844], it is 111 appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of 112 standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure 113 better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the 114 review and approval processes defined for each stream. 116 This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC 117 boilerplate structure, and provides a comprehensive approach to 118 updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC 119 document and content status. Most of the historical structure 120 information is collected from [RFC2223]. 122 The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as 123 practically possible after the document has been approved for 124 publication. 126 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards 128 Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet Standards- 129 related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet 130 Standards-related documents. 132 The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards 133 Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing 134 and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other 135 standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are 136 reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF 137 Stream. 139 Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not 140 generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, 141 congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed 142 protocols. They have also not been subject to approval by the 143 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide 144 last call. Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF 145 Stream documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any 146 purpose. 148 Refer to [RFC2026], [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis], and [RFC4844] and 149 their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC 150 streams. 152 3. RFC Structural Elements 154 3.1. The title page header 156 This section describes the elements that are commonly found in RFCs 157 published today. For the sake of clarity, this document specifies 158 the elements precisely as a specification. However, this is not 159 intended to specify a single, static format. Details of formatting 160 are decided by the RFC Editor. Substantive changes to the header and 161 boilerplate structure and content may be undertaken in the future, 162 and are subject to general oversight and review by the IAB. 164 An RFC title page header can be described as follows: 166 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 167 168 Request for Comments: [] 169 [ ] [more author info as appropriate] 170 [:] 171 Category: 172 174 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 176 For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows: 178 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 179 Network Working Group T. Dierks 180 Request for Comments: 4346 Independent 181 Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla 182 Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc. 183 April 2006 185 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 186 The right column contains author name and affiliation information as 187 well as the RFC publication month. Conventions and restrictions for 188 these elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual 189 stream definitions. 191 This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left 192 column: 194 This describes the area where the work originates. 195 Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group. 196 "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's 197 IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and 198 whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got 199 together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols 200 [RFC0003]. Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working Group" in 201 order to indicate the originating stream. 203 The is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in 204 [RFC4844] and its successors. At the time of this publication, 205 the streams, and therefore the possible entries are: 207 * Internet Engineering Task Force 209 * Internet Architecture Board 211 * Internet Research Task Force 213 * Independent 215 Request for Comments: This indicates the RFC number, 216 assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This 217 element is unchanged. 219 Some document categories are also 220 labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as 221 appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the 222 documents number within that series. Currently, there are 223 subseries for BCPs [RFC2026], STDs [RFC1311], and FYIs [RFC1150]. 224 These subseries numbers may appear in several RFCs. For example, 225 when a new RFC obsoletes or updates an old one, the same subseries 226 number is used. Also, several RFCs may be assigned the same 227 subseries number: a single STD, for example, may be composed of 228 several RFCs, each of which will bear the same STD number. This 229 element is unchanged. 231 [:] Some relations between RFCs in the 232 series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new 233 RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two 234 relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223]. 235 Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]). 236 Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor and 237 may appear in future RFCs. 239 Category: This indicates the initial RFC document 240 category of the publication. These are defined in [RFC2026]. 241 Currently, this is always one of: Standards Track, Best Current 242 Practice, Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element 243 is unchanged. 245 3.2. The Status of this Memo 247 The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC, 248 including the distribution statement. This text is included 249 irrespective of the source stream of the RFC. 251 The "Status of This Memo" will start with a single sentence 252 describing the status. It will also include a statement describing 253 the stream-specific review of the material (which is stream- 254 dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar as it 255 clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader an 256 understanding of how to consider its content. 258 3.2.1. Paragraph 1 260 The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a 261 single sentence, clearly standing out. It depends on the category of 262 the document. 264 For 'Standards Track' documents: "This is an Internet Standards 265 Track document." 267 For 'Best Current Practices' documents: "This memo documents an 268 Internet Best Current Practice." 270 For other categories "This document is not an Internet Standards 271 Track specification; ." 273 For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of 274 RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for . Initial values are: 277 Informational: "it is published for informational purposes." 279 Historic: "it is published for the historical record." 281 Experimental: "it is published for examination, experimental 282 implementation, and evaluation." 284 3.2.2. Paragraph 2 286 The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a 287 paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has 288 received. This is defined on a per-stream basis, subject to general 289 review and oversight by the RFC Editor and IAB. There is a specific 290 structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about review 291 processes and document types. These paragraphs will need to be 292 defined and maintained as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial 293 text, for current streams, is provided below. 295 The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial 296 document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or 297 Historic the second paragraph opens with: 299 Experimental: "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for 300 the Internet community." 302 Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the 303 Internet community." 305 The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values 306 and may be updated by stream definition document updates. 308 IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 309 Task Force (IETF)." 311 If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an 312 additional sentence should be added: "It represents the consensus 313 of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been 314 approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering 315 Group (IESG)." If there has not been such a consensus call then 316 this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the 317 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)." 319 IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture 320 Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed 321 valuable to provide for permanent record." 323 IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research 324 Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- 325 related research and development activities. These results might 326 not be suitable for deployment." 328 In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the 329 IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the 330 Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force 331 (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual 332 opinion(s) of one or more members of the Research 333 Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)". 335 Independent Stream: "This is a contribution to the RFC Series, 336 independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen 337 to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement 338 about its value for implementation or deployment. 340 For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is 341 added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for 342 publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB", 343 "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of 344 Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." 346 For IETF stream documents a similar reference is added: "Further 347 information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2 348 of RFC XXXX." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all 349 documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of 350 Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." for all other 351 categories. 353 3.2.3. Paragraph 3 355 The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant 356 information can be found. This information may include, subject to 357 the RFC Editor's discretion, information whether the RFC has been 358 updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a listing of possible errata, 359 information about how to provide feedback and suggestion, and 360 information on how to submit errata as described in 361 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. The exact wording and URL is 362 subject to change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text 363 is: 365 "Information about the current status of this document, any errata, 366 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 367 http://www.rfc-editor.org//rfc.html" 369 3.2.4. Noteworthy 371 Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate 372 the initial status of a document. During their lifetime documents 373 can change status to e.g. Historic. This cannot be reflected in the 374 document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered 375 to in Section 3.4. 377 3.3. Additional Notes 379 Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe 380 additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status 381 of This Memo". 383 While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal 384 of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear 385 to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly 386 exceptional. 388 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs 390 RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor 391 is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural 392 element. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted 393 using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or 394 may not require documentation in an RFC. 396 Currently the following structural information is available or is 397 being considered for inclusion in RFCs: 399 Copyright Notice A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78 400 [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78 401 and BCP79 [BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined by 402 those BCPs. 404 ISSN The International Standard Serial Number [ISO3297]: ISSN 2070- 405 1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title 406 regardless of language or country in which it is published. The 407 ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique 408 identification of a serial publication. 410 4. Security considerations 412 This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an 413 RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause 414 interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems. 416 5. IANA considerations 418 None. 420 6. RFC Editor Considerations 422 The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the 423 RFC series. To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual 424 [RFC-style]. In this memo we mention a few explicit structural 425 elements that the RFC editor needs to maintain. The conventions for 426 the content and use of all current and future elements are to be 427 documented in the style manual. 429 Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one 430 method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated. The RFC 431 editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and 432 interfaces. 434 [The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards 435 editing this document and can be removed before publication] 437 The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be 438 removed before publication as an RFC. This one and Appendix D. 440 This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be 441 implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit 442 tracker and the rfc-erratum portal. 444 The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo. 446 References [RFC-style], [BCP78] and [BCP79] have been constructed. 447 Please bring these in line with RFC Editorial conventions. 449 In section Section 3.4: For the final publication, it should be 450 warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity. 452 The URL in Appendix A should be replaced with whatever the RFC Editor 453 decides upon. 455 7. References 457 7.1. Normative References 459 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 460 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 462 [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis] 463 Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for 464 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", 465 draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06 (work in progress), 466 November 2008. 468 7.2. Informative References 470 [ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and 471 documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and 472 description. , "Information and documentation - 473 International standard serial number (ISSN)" , 09 2007 . 475 [RFC0003] Crocker, S. , "Documentation conventions" , RFC 3 , 476 April 1969 . 478 [RFC1311] Postel, J. , "Introduction to the STD Notes" , RFC 1311 479 , March 1992 . 481 [RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds , "FYI on FYI: Introduction 482 to the FYI Notes" , RFC 1150 , March 1990 . 484 [RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds , "Instructions to RFC 485 Authors" , RFC 2223 , October 1997 . 487 [RFC2629] Rose, M. , "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML" , RFC 2629 488 , June 1999 . 490 [RFC3979] Bradner, S. , "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF 491 Technology" , BCP 79 , RFC 3979 , March 2005 . 493 [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board , "The RFC 494 Series and RFC Editor" , RFC 4844 , July 2007 . 496 [RFC4749] Sollaud, A. , "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio 497 Codec" , RFC 4749 , October 2006 . 499 [RFC5143] Malis, A. , Brayley, J. , Shirron, J. , Martini, L. , 500 and S. Vogelsang , "Synchronous Optical Network/ 501 Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit 502 Emulation Service over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation" , 503 RFC 5143 , February 2008 . 505 [RFC5378] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras , "Rights Contributors 506 Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 , RFC 5378 , 507 November 2008 . 509 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process] 510 Ginoza, S. , Hagens, A. , and R. Braden , "RFC Editor 511 Proposal for Handling RFC Errata" , 512 draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02 (work in progress) , 513 May 2008 . 515 [BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed. , "Rights 516 Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 , 517 November 2008 . 519 At the moment of publication:[RFC5378] 521 [BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual 522 Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007. 524 At the moment of publication:[RFC3979]and[RFC4749] 526 [RFC-style] 527 RFC Editor, "RFC Style Guide", 528 . 530 Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates 532 [Editor note: The URLs used in this example are examples.] 534 A.1. IETF Standards Track 536 The boilerplate for a Standards Track document that (by definition) 537 has been subject to an IETF consensus call. 539 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 540 Status of this Memo 542 This is an Internet Standards Track document. 544 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force 545 (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF community. It has 546 received public review and has been approved for publication by 547 the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on 548 the Internet Standards Track is available in Section 2 of RFC 549 XXXX." 551 Information about the current status of this document, any 552 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 553 http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html 555 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 556 A.2. IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call 558 The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been subject to 559 an IETF consensus call. 561 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 562 Status of this Memo 564 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 565 has been published for Experimental purposes. 567 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet 568 community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are 569 requested. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 570 Task Force (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF 571 community. It has received public review and has been approved 572 for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group 573 (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for 574 any level of Internet Standards see Section 2 of RFC XXXX. 576 Information about the current status of this document, any 577 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 578 http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html 579 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 581 A.3. IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call 583 The boilerplate for an Experimental document that not has been 584 subject to an IETF consensus call. 586 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 587 Status of this Memo 589 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 590 has been published for Experimental purposes. 592 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet 593 community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 594 Task Force (IETF). It has been approved for publication by the 595 Internet Engineering Steering Group. Not all documents approved 596 by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet Standards see 597 Section 2 of RFC XXXX. 599 Information about the current status of this document, any 600 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 601 http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html 602 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 603 A.4. IAB Informational 605 The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document. 607 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 608 Status of this Memo 610 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 611 has been published for Informational purposes. 613 This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board 614 (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable 615 to provide for permanent record. Documents approved for 616 publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of 617 Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." 619 Information about the current status of this document, any 620 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 621 http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html 622 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 624 A.5. IRTF Experimental 626 The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been produced 627 by the IRTF and for which there was no RG consensus. This variation 628 is the most verbose boilerplate in the current set. 630 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 631 Status of this Memo 633 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 634 has been published for Experimental purposes. 636 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet 637 community. This document is a product of the Internet Research 638 Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- 639 related research and development activities. These results might 640 not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the individual 641 opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of 642 the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for 643 publication by the IRTF are not a candidate for any level of 644 Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." 646 Information about the current status of this document, any 647 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 648 http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html 649 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 650 Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval 652 The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in 653 alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart 654 Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba, 655 Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave 656 Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex- 657 officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive 658 Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair. 660 Appendix C. Acknowledgements 662 Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza, 663 and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration. 665 Various people have made suggestions that improved the document. 666 Among them are: Lars Eggert, Alfred Hoenes, and Joe Touch. 668 This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. 670 Appendix D. Document Editing Details 672 [To Be Removed before publication] 674 $Id: headers-boilerplates.xml 83 2009-04-23 06:35:05Z olaf $ 676 D.1. version 00->01 678 Fixed the header so it appropriately shows that the document updates 679 RFC 4844, 2223. And added a link to 3932-bis that should appear in 680 tandem with this publication. 682 Introduced the "Other structural information in RFCs" section and 683 moved the ISSN number from the front matter to this section. The 684 "Other structural information in RFCs" intends to give very rough 685 guidance providing the RFC editor with sufficient freedom to move 686 pieces around and edit them to please the eye and mind. 688 Modified the last sentence 3rd paragraph of the Status of this memo 689 section for the IRTF Stream in accordance to a suggestion by Aaron 690 Falk; Indicating that review happened by the IRSG and not indicating 691 that review did not happen by the IESG. 693 Introduced the square brackets around the in the 694 header. To highlight this is an optional element. 696 The definition of the "Clarifies" relation has been taken out. There 697 are arguments that introducing the relation needs a bit more thought 698 and is better done by a separate document. 700 Provided the RFC Editor with responsibility to maintain several text 701 pieces. 703 In Section 3.2 some modifications were applied to the text. 705 The contains the full name of the stream. 707 RFC2223 and 4844 moved to the informative reference section. 708 Although I am not sure if those are not normative. Guidance!!! 710 D.2. version 01->02 712 Fixed some editorial nits and missing references. 714 Clarified that the status and category are initial. 716 Added boilerplate text for documents that are initially published as 717 Historic. 719 Added members of IAB, and removed those members from acknowledgements 721 Added References to BCP78 and BCP79. The exact formatting of those 722 references may need to be done by the RFC editor. 724 Added text to recognize occurrences of variations of "Obsolete" and 725 "Update" 727 D.3. version 02->03 729 Stray language in the "IAB members at time of approval" section 730 removed. 732 D.4. version 03->04 734 Addressed the minor nit from Brian Carpenter. 736 Reference to style guide stet to styleguide.html 738 D.5. version 04->05 740 References updated to reflect BCP78 being updated 742 Submitted under new boilerplate 743 Rewording of boilerplate material based on rfc-interest discussion 744 starting with http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/ 745 2008-December/001078.html 747 Added examples in Appendix A 749 D.6. version 05->06 751 Nits corrected 753 Fixede Boilerplate for IETF stream document without IETF consensus. 755 Corruption of examples due to XML bug corrected 757 D.7. version 06->07 759 Nits corrected 761 Fixed inconsistency: Request for feedback only appeared in the 762 Experimental category, moved this to the "Update to this memo 763 section" 765 Changed the content of the 3rd paragraph of document status to be a 766 static (per stream) pointer to finding more information about the 767 document status, errata, and providing feedback. This was to address 768 the concern of having dynamic (per-document) text in the boilerplate, 769 if this "updates" section was document specific. 771 D.8. version 07->08 773 Introduced language to clarify that the RFC Editor is responsible for 774 details with respect to style and formatting. 776 Authors' Addresses 778 Leslie Daigle (editor) 780 Email: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com 782 Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) 784 Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl 785 Internet Architecture Board 787 Email: iab@iab.org