< draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-06.txt   draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.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: July 26, 2009 January 22, 2009 Expires: September 3, 2009 March 2, 2009
On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-06 draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and 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.
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
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 July 26, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2009.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document.
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.
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
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 3.2.1. Paragraph 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.2. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.3. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.4. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boileplates . . . 12 Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates . . . 12
A.1. IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.1. IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.2. IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.2. IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.3. IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.3. IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.4. IAB Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.4. IAB Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.5. IRTF Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.5. IRTF Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix D. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix D. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
D.1. version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 D.1. version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
D.2. version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 D.2. version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D.3. version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D.3. version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D.4. version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D.4. version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D.5. version 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D.5. version 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
D.6. version 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D.6. version 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D.7. version 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
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
increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to
make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it
describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as
part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs
that may have had a very different review and approval process. that may have had a very different review and approval process.
Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving
text of "Notes" included in the published RFC. text of "Notes" included in the published RFC.
With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844] it is With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844], it is
appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of
standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure
better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the
review and approval processes defined for each stream. review and approval processes defined for each stream.
This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC
boilerplate structure, and provides a comprehensive approach to boilerplate structure, and provides a comprehensive approach to
updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC
document and content status. Most of the historical structure document and content status. Most of the historical structure
information is collected from [RFC2223]. information is collected from [RFC2223].
skipping to change at page 4, line 4 skipping to change at page 4, line 4
Standards-related documents. Standards-related documents.
The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards
Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing
and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other
standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are
reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF
Stream. Stream.
Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not
reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, congestion control, generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security,
or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. They have also congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
not been subject to approval by the Internet Engineering Steering protocols. They have also not been subject to approval by the
Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide last call. Therefore, the IETF Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide
disclaims, for any of the non-IETF Stream documents, any knowledge of last call. Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF
the fitness of those RFCs for any purpose. Stream documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any
purpose.
Refer to [RFC2026], [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis], and [RFC4844] and Refer to [RFC2026], [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis], and [RFC4844] and
their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC
streams. streams.
3. RFC Structural Elements 3. RFC Structural Elements
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 the RFC publication month. Conventions and restrictions for
elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual stream these elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual
definitions. stream 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:
<document source> This describes the area where the work originates. <document source> This describes the area where the work originates.
Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group. Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group.
"Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's
IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and
whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got
together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols
skipping to change at page 5, line 34 skipping to change at page 5, line 34
* Independent * Independent
Request for Comments: <RFC number> This indicates the RFC number, Request for Comments: <RFC number> This indicates the RFC number,
assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This
element is unchanged. element is unchanged.
<subseries ID> <subseries number> Some document categories are also <subseries ID> <subseries number> Some document categories are also
labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as
appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the
documents number within that series. Currently, there are documents number within that series. Currently, there are
subseries for BCPs [RFC2026], STDs[RFC1311], and FYIs [RFC1150]. subseries for BCPs [RFC2026], STDs [RFC1311], and FYIs [RFC1150].
These subseries numbers may appear in several RFCs. For example, These subseries numbers may appear in several RFCs. For example,
when a new RFC obsoletes or updates an old one, the same subseries when a new RFC obsoletes or updates an old one, the same subseries
number is used. Also, several RFCs may be assigned the same number is used. Also, several RFCs may be assigned the same
subseries number: a single STD, for example, may be composed of subseries number: a single STD, for example, may be composed of
several RFCs, each of which will bear the same STD number. This several RFCs, each of which will bear the same STD number. This
element is unchanged. element is unchanged.
[<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>] Some relations between RFCs in the [<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>] Some relations between RFCs in the
series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new
RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two
skipping to change at page 6, line 25 skipping to change at page 6, line 25
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 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.
For 'Standards Track' documents: This is an Internet Standards Track For 'Standards Track' documents: "This is an Internet Standards
document. Track document."
For 'Best Current Practices' documents: This memo documents an For 'Best Current Practices' documents: "This memo documents an
Internet Best Current Practice Internet Best Current Practice."
For other categories This document is not an Internet Standards For other categories "This document is not an Internet Standards
Track specification; <it is 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>. Initial values are: published for other purposes>. Initial values are:
Informational: it is published for informational purposes." Informational: "it is published for informational purposes."
Historic: it is published for the historical record." Historic: "it is published for the historical record."
Experimental: it is published for examination, experimental Experimental: "it is published for examination, experimental
implementation, and evaluation." implementation, and evaluation."
3.2.2. Paragraph 2 3.2.2. Paragraph 2
The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a
paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has
received. This is defined on a per-stream basis, although there is a received. This is defined on a per-stream basis, although there is a
specific structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about specific structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about
review processes and document types. From now on, these paragraphs review processes and document types. From now on, these paragraphs
will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial text, for will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial text, for
current streams, is provided below. current streams, is provided below.
The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial
document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or
Historic the second paragraph opens with: Historic the second paragraph opens with:
Experimental: "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for Experimental: "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
the Internet community. Discussion and suggestions for the Internet community."
improvement are requested."
Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the
Internet community. Internet community."
The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values
and may be updated by stream definition document updates. 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: "It represents a consensus of additional sentence should be added: "It represents the consensus
the IETF community. It has received public review and has been of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been
approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
Group (IESG)." If there has not been such a consensus call then Group (IESG)." If there has not been such a consensus call then
this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)." Internet Engineering Steering 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. valuable to provide for permanent record."
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. not be suitable for deployment."
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 is a contribution to the RFC Series, Independent Stream: "This is a contribution to the RFC Series,
independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen
to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement
about its value for implementation or deployment. about its value for implementation or deployment.
For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is
added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for
publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB", publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB",
"IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFCXXXX." Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
For IETF stream documents a similar reference is added: "Further For IETF stream documents a similar reference is added: "Further
information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2 information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2
of RFCXXXX." for BCP and Standard Track docments; "Not all documents of RFC XXXX." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all
approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of
Standards see Section 2 of RFCXXXX." for all other categories. Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." for all other
categories.
3.2.3. Paragraph 3 3.2.3. Paragraph 3
The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant
information can be found: "Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' information can be found. As boilerplate, this text should not be
section of this document for information on where to find the status document-specific, although the material to which it refers may lead
of this document and the availability of errata for this memo." the to document-specific information. The exact wording is subject to
exact wording is subject to change by the RFC Editor. change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text is:
"Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/<stream-id>.html"
where <stream-id> is one of: "ietf", "iab", "irtf", "independent".
3.2.4. Noteworthy 3.2.4. Noteworthy
Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate
the initial status of a document. During their lifetime documents the initial status of a document. During their lifetime documents
can change status to e.g. Historic. This cannot be reflected in the can change status to e.g. Historic. This cannot be reflected in the
document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered
to in Section 3.4. to in Section 3.4.
3.3. Additional Notes 3.3. Additional Notes
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 14
3.4. Other structural information in RFCs 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs
RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor
is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural
element. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted element. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted
using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or
may not require documentation in an RFC. may not require documentation in an RFC.
Currently the following structural information is available or is Currently the following structural information is available or is
being considered for inclusion in RFCs being considered for inclusion in RFCs:
Copyright Notice A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78 Copyright Notice A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78
[BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78 [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78
and BCP79 [BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined by and BCP79 [BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined by
those BCPs. those BCPs.
ISSN The International Standard Serial Number [ISO3297]: ISSN 2070- ISSN The International Standard Serial Number [ISO3297]: ISSN 2070-
1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title 1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title
regardless of language or country in which it is published. The regardless of language or country in which it is published. The
ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique
identification of a serial publication. identification of a serial publication.
Updates to the RFC A reference identifying where more information Updates to the RFC A reference identifying where more information
about the document can be found. This may include information about the document can be found. This may include information
whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a
originating stream, a listing of possible errata, and information listing of possible errata, information about how to provide
on how to submit errata as described in feedback and suggestion, and information on how to submit errata
[I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. as described in [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process].
4. Security considerations 4. Security considerations
This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an
RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause
interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems. interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems.
5. IANA considerations 5. IANA considerations
None. None.
skipping to change at page 11, line 38 skipping to change at page 11, line 47
[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. and J. Contreras, Ed. , "Rights [BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed. , "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 , Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 ,
November 2008 . November 2008 .
[RFC5378] At the moment of publication:[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] At the moment of publication:[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. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boileplates Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates
A.1. IETF Standards Track A.1. IETF Standards Track
The boilerplate for a Standards Track document that (by definition) The boilerplate for a Standards Track document that (by definition)
has been subject to an IETF consensus call has been subject to an IETF consensus call.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document. This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF community. It has (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by received public review and has been approved for publication by
the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on
the Internet Standards Track is available in Section 2 of RFCXXXX." the Internet Standards Track is available in Section 2 of RFC
XXXX."
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/ietf.html
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.2. IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call A.2. IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call
The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been subject to The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been subject to
an IETF consensus call an IETF consensus call.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Experimental purposes. has been published for Experimental purposes.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are
requested. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering requested. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF Task Force (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved community. It has received public review and has been approved
for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for
any level of Internet Standards see Section 2 of any level of Internet Standards see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.
RFCXXXX.
Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' section of this document for Information about the current status of this document, any
information on where to find the status of this document and the errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
availability of errata for this memo. http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/ietf.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.3. IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call A.3. IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call
The boilerplate for an Experimental document that not has been The boilerplate for an Experimental document that not has been
subject to an IETF consensus call subject to an IETF consensus call.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Experimental purposes. has been published for Experimental purposes.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
requested. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It has been approved for publication by the
Task Force (IETF). It has been approved for publication by Internet Engineering Steering Group. Not all documents approved
the Internet Engineering Steering Group. by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet Standards see
Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for Section 2 of RFC XXXX.
any level of Internet Standards see Section 2 of
RFCXXXX.
Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' section of this document for Information about the current status of this document, any
information on where to find the status of this document and the errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
availability of errata for this memo. http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/ietf.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.4. IAB Informational A.4. IAB Informational
The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Informational purposes. has been published for Informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable
to provide for permanent record. Documents approved for to provide for permanent record. Documents approved for
publication by IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of
Standard; see Section 2 of RFCXXXX." Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' section of this document for Information about the current status of this document, any
information on where to find the status of this document and the errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
availability of errata for this memo. http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/iab.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.5. IRTF Experimental A.5. IRTF Experimental
The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been produced The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been produced
by the IRTF and for which there was no RG consensus. This variation by the IRTF and for which there was no RG consensus. This variation
is the most verbose boilerplate in the current set. is the most verbose boilerplate in the current set.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
has been published for Experimental purposes. has been published for Experimental purposes.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are community. This document is a product of the Internet Research
requested. 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 RFC represents the individual not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the individual
opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of
the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for
publication by IRTF are not a candidate for any level of Internet publication by the IRTF are not a candidate for any level of
Standard; see Section 2 of RFCXXXX." Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
Please see the 'Updates to the RFC' section of this document for Information about the current status of this document, any
information on where to find the status of this document and the errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
availability of errata for this memo. http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/irtf.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval 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.
skipping to change at page 15, line 11 skipping to change at page 15, line 28
Various people have made suggestions that improved the document. Various people have made suggestions that improved the document.
Among them are: Lars Eggert, Alfred Hoenes, and Joe Touch. 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 D. Document Editing Details Appendix D. Document Editing Details
[To Be Removed before publication] [To Be Removed before publication]
$Id: draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-06.txt 66 2009-01-22 20:45:01Z olaf $ $Id: headers-boilerplates.xml 74 2009-03-02 12:42:05Z olaf $
D.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
skipping to change at page 16, line 32 skipping to change at page 17, line 4
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 D.5. version 04->05
References updated to reflect BCP78 being updated References updated to reflect BCP78 being updated
Submitted under new boilerplate Submitted under new boilerplate
Rewording of boilerplate material based on rfc-interest discussion Rewording of boilerplate material based on rfc-interest discussion
starting with http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/ starting with http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/
2008-December/001078.html 2008-December/001078.html
Added examples in Appendix A Added examples in Appendix A
D.6. version 05->06 D.6. version 05->06
Nits corrected Nits corrected
Fixede Boilerplate for IETF stream document without IETF consensus. Fixede Boilerplate for IETF stream document without IETF consensus.
Corruption of examples due to XML bug corrected Corruption of examples due to XML bug corrected
D.7. version 06->07
Nits corrected
Fixed inconsistency: Request for feedback only appeared in the
Experimental category, moved this to the "Update to this memo
section"
Changed the content of the 3rd paragraph of document status to be a
static (per stream) pointer to finding more information about the
document status, errata, and providing feedback. This was to address
the concern of having dynamic (per-document) text in the boilerplate,
if this "updates" section was document specific.
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
 End of changes. 55 change blocks. 
98 lines changed or deleted 117 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/