< draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-04.txt   draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-05.txt >
Network Working Group L. Daigle, Ed. Network Working Group L. Daigle, Ed.
Internet-Draft O. Kolkman, Ed. Internet-Draft O. Kolkman, Ed.
Updates: 4844, 2223 Updates: 4844, 2223
(if approved) Internet Architecture Board (if approved) Internet Architecture Board
Intended status: Informational (IAB) Intended status: Informational (IAB)
Expires: May 29, 2009 November 25, 2008 Expires: July 20, 2009 January 16, 2009
On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-04 draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-05
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 29, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 20, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Abstract Abstract
RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title
page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements. page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements.
This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect
current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular,
this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source
of RFC creation and review. of RFC creation and review.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. The title page header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. The title page header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. The Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. The Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Paragraph 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.4. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boileplates . . . 11
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A.1. IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix C. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.2. IETF Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
C.1. version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.3. IAB Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C.2. version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.4. IAB Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
C.3. version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.5. IRTF Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
C.4. version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix D. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D.1. version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D.2. version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D.3. version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D.4. version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D.5. version 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Previously RFCs (e.g. [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that Previously RFCs (e.g. [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that
were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also
contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the
document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document
interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents. interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents.
As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been
skipping to change at page 4, line 27 skipping to change at page 4, line 27
3.1. The title page header 3.1. The title page header
An RFC title page header can be described as follows: An RFC title page header can be described as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
<document source> <author name> <document source> <author name>
Request for Comments: <RFC number> [<author affiliation>] Request for Comments: <RFC number> [<author affiliation>]
[<subseries ID> <subseries number>] [more author info as appropriate] [<subseries ID> <subseries number>] [more author info as appropriate]
[<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>] [<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>]
Category: <category> Category: <category>
<month year> <month year>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows: For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Working Group T. Dierks Network Working Group T. Dierks
Request for Comments: 4346 Independent Request for Comments: 4346 Independent
Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla
Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc. Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc.
April 2006 April 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right column contains author name and affiliation information as The right column contains author name and affiliation information as
well as RFC publication date. Conventions and restrictions for these well as RFC publication date. Conventions and restrictions for these
elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual stream elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual stream
definitions. definitions.
This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left
column: column:
skipping to change at page 6, line 19 skipping to change at page 6, line 19
including the distribution statement. This text is included including the distribution statement. This text is included
irrespective of the source stream of the RFC. irrespective of the source stream of the RFC.
From now on, the "Status of This Memo" will start with a single From now on, the "Status of This Memo" will start with a single
sentence describing the status. It will also include a statement sentence describing the status. It will also include a statement
describing the stream-specific review of the material (which is describing the stream-specific review of the material (which is
stream-dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar stream-dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar
as it clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader as it clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader
an understanding of how to consider its content. an understanding of how to consider its content.
3.2.1. Paragraph 1
The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a
single sentence, clearly standing out. It depends on the category of single sentence, clearly standing out. It depends on the category of
the document. the document.
This memo is an Internet Standards Track document. For 'Standards Track' documents: This is an Internet Standards Track
document.
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice For 'Best Current Practices' documents: This memo documents an
Internet Best Current Practice
This memo is not an Internet Standards Track specification; <it is For other categories This document is not an Internet Standards
published for other purposes>. Track specification; <it is published for other purposes>.
For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of
RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for <it is RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for <it is
published for other purposes>. For example, with an Informational published for other purposes>. Initial values are:
document this could read "it is published for informational
purposes".
The second paragraph contains text as follows that is specific to the Informational: it is published for informational purposes."
initial category:
Standards Track: "This document specifies an Internet standards Historic: it is published for historical record."
track protocol for the Internet community. Please see the
"Updates to the RFC" section of this document for information on
where to find the status of this document and the availability of
errata for this memo."
Best Current Practice: "This document specifies an Internet Best Experimental: it is published for examination, experimental
Current Practices for the Internet Community. Please see the implementation, and evaluation."
"Updates to the RFC" section of this document for information on
where to find the status of this document and the availability of
errata for this memo."
Experimental: "This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the 3.2.2. Paragraph 2
Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet
standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement
are requested."
Informational: "This memo provides information for the Internet The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a
community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has
kind. " received. This is defined on a per-stream basis, although there is a
specific structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about
review processes and document types. From now on, these paragraphs
will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial text, for
current streams, is provided below.
Historic: "This memo defines a Historic Document for the Internet The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or
Historic the second paragraph opens with:
Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate Experimental: "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
the initial status of a document. During their lifetime documents the Internet community. Discussion and suggestions for
can change status to e.g. Historic. This cannot be reflected in the improvement are requested."
document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered
to in Section 3.4.
The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the
paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has Internet community.
received. This is defined on a per-stream basis. From now on, these
paragraphs will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions.
The following texts may be updated if the stream definitions are The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values
updated, but initial paragraphs for the existing streams are: and may be updated by stream definition document updates.
IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). " Task Force (IETF). "
If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an
additional sentence should be added: "This document represents a additional sentence should be added: "It represents a consensus of
consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review the IETF community. It has received public review and has been
and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
Steering Group." Group (IESG)."
IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed
valuable to provide for permanent record. This document has been valuable to provide for permanent record.
approved for publication by the IAB and is therefore not a
candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see section
Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
related research and development activities. These results might related research and development activities. These results might
not be suitable for deployment. This document has been approved not be suitable for deployment.
for publication by the IRSG. It is not a product of the IETF and
is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard;
see section Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the
IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the
<insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force <insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual
opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)". Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)".
Independent Stream: "This document is a contribution to the RFC Independent Stream: "This is a contribution to the RFC Series,
Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen
chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement
statement about its value for implementation or deployment. It is about its value for implementation or deployment.
therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see
section Section 2 of RFCXXXX." For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is
added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for
publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB",
"IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
For IETF stream documents a similar reference is added: "Further
information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2
of RFCXXXX." for BCP and Standard Track docments; "Not all documents
approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet
Standards see Section 2 of RFCXXXX." for all other categories.
3.2.3. Paragraph 3
The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant
information can be found: "Please see the 'Updates to the RFC'
section of this document for information on where to find the status
of this document and the availability of errata for this memo." the
exact wording is subject to change by the RFC Editor.
3.2.4. Noteworthy
Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate
the initial status of a document. During their lifetime documents
can change status to e.g. Historic. This cannot be reflected in the
document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered
to in Section 3.4.
3.3. Additional Notes 3.3. Additional Notes
Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe
additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status
of This Memo". of This Memo".
While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal
of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear
to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly
skipping to change at page 9, line 38 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
the content and use of all current and future elements are to be the content and use of all current and future elements are to be
documented in the style manual. documented in the style manual.
Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one
method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated. The RFC method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated. The RFC
editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and
interfaces. interfaces.
[The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards [The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards
editing this document and can be removed before publication] editing this document and can be removed before publication]
The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be
removed before publication as an RFC. This one and Appendix C. removed before publication as an RFC. This one and Appendix D.
This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be
implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit
tracker and the rfc-erratum portal. tracker and the rfc-erratum portal.
The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo. The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo.
References [RFC-style], [BCP78] and [BCP79] have been constructed. References [RFC-style], [BCP78] and [BCP79] have been constructed.
Please bring these in line with RFC Editorial conventions. Please bring these in line with RFC Editorial conventions.
skipping to change at page 10, line 18 skipping to change at page 10, line 29
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis] [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis]
Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-04 (work in progress), draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06 (work in progress),
October 2008. November 2008.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and [ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and
documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and
description. , "Information and documentation - description. , "Information and documentation -
International standard serial number (ISSN)" , 09 2007 . International standard serial number (ISSN)" , 09 2007 .
[RFC0003] Crocker, S. , "Documentation conventions" , RFC 3 , [RFC0003] Crocker, S. , "Documentation conventions" , RFC 3 ,
April 1969 . April 1969 .
skipping to change at page 10, line 43 skipping to change at page 11, line 8
[RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds , "FYI on FYI: Introduction [RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds , "FYI on FYI: Introduction
to the FYI Notes" , RFC 1150 , March 1990 . to the FYI Notes" , RFC 1150 , March 1990 .
[RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds , "Instructions to RFC [RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds , "Instructions to RFC
Authors" , RFC 2223 , October 1997 . Authors" , RFC 2223 , October 1997 .
[RFC2629] Rose, M. , "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML" , RFC 2629 [RFC2629] Rose, M. , "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML" , RFC 2629
, June 1999 . , June 1999 .
[RFC3978] Bradner, S. , "IETF Rights in Contributions" , BCP 78 ,
RFC 3978 , March 2005 .
[RFC3979] Bradner, S. , "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF [RFC3979] Bradner, S. , "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology" , BCP 79 , RFC 3979 , March 2005 . Technology" , BCP 79 , RFC 3979 , March 2005 .
[RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board , "The RFC [RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board , "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor" , RFC 4844 , July 2007 . Series and RFC Editor" , RFC 4844 , July 2007 .
[RFC4748] Bradner, S. , "RFC 3978 Update to Recognize the IETF
Trust" , BCP 78 , RFC 4748 , October 2006 .
[RFC4749] Sollaud, A. , "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio [RFC4749] Sollaud, A. , "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio
Codec" , RFC 4749 , October 2006 . Codec" , RFC 4749 , October 2006 .
[RFC5143] Malis, A. , Brayley, J. , Shirron, J. , Martini, L. , [RFC5143] Malis, A. , Brayley, J. , Shirron, J. , Martini, L. ,
and S. Vogelsang , "Synchronous Optical Network/ and S. Vogelsang , "Synchronous Optical Network/
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit
Emulation Service over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation" , Emulation Service over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation" ,
RFC 5143 , February 2008 . RFC 5143 , February 2008 .
[RFC5378] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras , "Rights Contributors
Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 , RFC 5378 ,
November 2008 .
[I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process] [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]
Ginoza, S. , Hagens, A. , and R. Braden , "RFC Editor Ginoza, S. , Hagens, A. , and R. Braden , "RFC Editor
Proposal for Handling RFC Errata" , Proposal for Handling RFC Errata" ,
draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02 (work in progress) , draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02 (work in progress) ,
May 2008 . May 2008 .
[BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. , "IETF Rights in Contributions" , [BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed. , "Rights
BCP 78 , October 2006 . Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 ,
November 2008 .
[RFC3978]and[RFC4748] [RFC5378]
[BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual [BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual
Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007. Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007.
[RFC3979]and[RFC4749] [RFC3979]and[RFC4749]
[RFC-style] [RFC-style]
RFC Editor, "RFC Style Guide", RFC Editor, "RFC Style Guide",
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html>.
Appendix A. IAB members at time of approval Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boileplates
A.1. IETF Standards Track
The boilerplate for a Standards Track document that (by definition)
has been subject to an IETF consensus call
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by
the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on
the Internet Standards Track is available in
Section 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by
the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on
the Internet Standards Track is available in
A.2. IETF Experimental
The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been subject to
an IETF consensus call
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Experimental purposes.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are
requested. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved
for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for
any level of Internet Standards see
Section 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Experimental purposes.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are
requested. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved
for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for
any level of Internet Standards see
A.3. IAB Informational
The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable
to provide for permanent record. Documents approved for
publication by IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see
Section 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable
to provide for permanent record. Documents approved for
publication by IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see
A.4. IAB Informational
The boilerplate for an Informational RFC Editor document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Informational purposes.
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any
other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this
document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value
for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for
publication by RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see
Section 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Informational purposes.
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any
other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this
document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value
for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for
publication by RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see
A.5. IRTF Experimental
The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been produced
by the IRTF and for which there was no RG consensus. This variation
is the most verbose boilerplate in the current set.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Experimental purposes.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are
requested. This document is a product of the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
related research and development activities. These results might
not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the individual
opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of
the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for
publication by IRTF are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see
Section 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Experimental purposes.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are
requested. This document is a product of the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
related research and development activities. These results might
not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the individual
opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of
the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for
publication by IRTF are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see
Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval
The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in
alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart
Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba, Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba,
Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave
Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex- Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. In addition, the IAB included two ex-
officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive
Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair. Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.
Appendix B. Acknowledgements Appendix C. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza, Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza,
and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration. and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration.
Various people have made suggestions that improved the document. Various people have made suggestions that improved the document.
Among them are: Lars Eggert and Alfred Hoenes. Among them are: Lars Eggert, Alfred Hoenes, and Joe Touch.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
Appendix C. Document Editing Details Appendix D. Document Editing Details
[To Be Removed before publication] [To Be Removed before publication]
$Id: headers-boilerplates.xml 53 2008-11-25 14:16:08Z olaf $ $Id: headers-boilerplates.xml 58 2009-01-16 07:38:34Z olaf $
C.1. version 00->01 D.1. version 00->01
Fixed the header so it appropriately shows that the document updates Fixed the header so it appropriately shows that the document updates
RFC 4844, 2223. And added a link to 3932-bis that should appear in RFC 4844, 2223. And added a link to 3932-bis that should appear in
tandem with this publication. tandem with this publication.
Introduced the "Other structural information in RFCs" section and Introduced the "Other structural information in RFCs" section and
moved the ISSN number from the front matter to this section. The moved the ISSN number from the front matter to this section. The
"Other structural information in RFCs" intends to give very rough "Other structural information in RFCs" intends to give very rough
guidance providing the RFC editor with sufficient freedom to move guidance providing the RFC editor with sufficient freedom to move
pieces around and edit them to please the eye and mind. pieces around and edit them to please the eye and mind.
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 17, line 19
Provided the RFC Editor with responsibility to maintain several text Provided the RFC Editor with responsibility to maintain several text
pieces. pieces.
In Section 3.2 some modifications were applied to the text. In Section 3.2 some modifications were applied to the text.
The <description> contains the full name of the stream. The <description> contains the full name of the stream.
RFC2223 and 4844 moved to the informative reference section. RFC2223 and 4844 moved to the informative reference section.
Although I am not sure if those are not normative. Guidance!!! Although I am not sure if those are not normative. Guidance!!!
C.2. version 01->02 D.2. version 01->02
Fixed some editorial nits and missing references. Fixed some editorial nits and missing references.
Clarified that the status and category are initial. Clarified that the status and category are initial.
Added boilerplate text for documents that are initially published as Added boilerplate text for documents that are initially published as
Historic. Historic.
Added members of IAB, and removed those members from acknowledgements Added members of IAB, and removed those members from acknowledgements
Added References to BCP78 and BCP79. The exact formatting of those Added References to BCP78 and BCP79. The exact formatting of those
references may need to be done by the RFC editor. references may need to be done by the RFC editor.
Added text to recognize occurrences of variations of "Obsolete" and Added text to recognize occurrences of variations of "Obsolete" and
"Update" "Update"
C.3. version 02->03 D.3. version 02->03
Stray language in the "IAB members at time of approval" section Stray language in the "IAB members at time of approval" section
removed. removed.
C.4. version 03->04 D.4. version 03->04
Addressed the minor nit from Brian Carpenter. Addressed the minor nit from Brian Carpenter.
Reference to style guide stet to styleguide.html Reference to style guide stet to styleguide.html
D.5. version 04->05
References updated to reflect BCP78 being updated
Submitted under new boilerplate
Rewording of boilerplate material based on rfc-interest discussion
starting with http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/
2008-December/001078.html
Added examples in Appendix A
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Leslie Daigle (editor) Leslie Daigle (editor)
Email: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com Email: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com
Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)
Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
Internet Architecture Board Internet Architecture Board
Email: iab@iab.org Email: iab@iab.org
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
97 lines changed or deleted 304 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/