< draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.txt   draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08.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: September 3, 2009 March 2, 2009 Expires: October 25, 2009 April 23, 2009
On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07 draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08
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 September 3, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 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 in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
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 3.2.1. Paragraph 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.2. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.3. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.4. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.4. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . 13
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.5. IRTF Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.5. IRTF Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix B. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 D.6. version 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D.7. version 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 D.7. version 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D.8. version 07->08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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.
skipping to change at page 4, line 20 skipping to change at page 4, line 20
purpose. 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
This section describes the elements that are commonly found in RFCs
published today. For the sake of clarity, this document specifies
the elements precisely as a specification. However, this is not
intended to specify a single, static format. Details of formatting
are decided by the RFC Editor. Substantive changes to the header and
boilerplate structure and content may be undertaken in the future,
and are subject to general oversight and review by the IAB.
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>
skipping to change at page 5, line 47 skipping to change at page 6, line 10
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
relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223]. relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC2223].
Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]). Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]).
Other types of relations may be defined elsewhere. Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor and
may appear in future RFCs.
Category: <category> This indicates the initial RFC document Category: <category> This indicates the initial RFC document
category of the publication. These are defined in [RFC2026]. category of the publication. These are defined in [RFC2026].
Currently, this is always one of: Standards Track, Best Current Currently, this is always one of: Standards Track, Best Current
Practice, Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element Practice, Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element
is unchanged. is unchanged.
3.2. The Status of this Memo 3.2. The Status of this Memo
The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC, The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC,
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 The "Status of This Memo" will start with a single sentence
sentence describing the status. It will also include a statement describing the status. It will also include a statement describing
describing the stream-specific review of the material (which is the stream-specific review of the material (which is stream-
stream-dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar as it
as it clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader an
an understanding of how to consider its content. 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 For 'Standards Track' documents: "This is an Internet Standards
Track document." Track document."
skipping to change at page 6, line 49 skipping to change at page 7, line 16
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, subject to general
specific structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about review and oversight by the RFC Editor and IAB. There is a specific
review processes and document types. From now on, these paragraphs structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about review
will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial text, for processes and document types. These paragraphs will need to be
current streams, is provided below. defined and maintained as part of RFC stream definitions. Initial
text, for 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." the Internet community."
Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the
Internet community." Internet community."
skipping to change at page 8, line 21 skipping to change at page 8, line 38
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 RFC XXXX." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all of RFC XXXX." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all
documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of
Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." for all other Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." for all other
categories. 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. As boilerplate, this text should not be information can be found. This information may include, subject to
document-specific, although the material to which it refers may lead the RFC Editor's discretion, information whether the RFC has been
to document-specific information. The exact wording is subject to updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a listing of possible errata,
change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text is: information about how to provide feedback and suggestion, and
information on how to submit errata as described in
[I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. The exact wording and URL is
subject to change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text
is:
"Information about the current status of this document, any errata, "Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/<stream-id>.html" http://www.rfc-editor.org/<static-path>/rfc<rfc-no>.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 27 skipping to change at page 9, line 46
[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
about the document can be found. This may include information
whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a
listing of possible errata, information about how to provide
feedback and suggestion, and information on how to submit errata
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 10, line 30 skipping to change at page 10, line 41
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.
In section Section 3.4: For the final publication, it should be In section Section 3.4: For the final publication, it should be
warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity. warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity.
The URL in Appendix A should be replaced with whatever the RFC Editor
decides upon.
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",
skipping to change at page 12, line 13 skipping to change at page 12, line 26
Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007. Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007.
At the moment of publication:[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' boilerplates Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates
[Editor note: The URLs used in this example are examples.]
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 RFC the Internet Standards Track is available in Section 2 of RFC
XXXX." XXXX."
Information about the current status of this document, any Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/ietf.html http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
skipping to change at page 13, line 22 skipping to change at page 13, line 26
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 RFC XXXX. any level of Internet Standards see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.
Information about the current status of this document, any Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/ietf.html http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.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
skipping to change at page 13, line 45 skipping to change at page 13, line 49
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering community. 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 the
Internet Engineering Steering Group. Not all documents approved Internet Engineering Steering Group. Not all documents approved
by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet Standards see by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet Standards see
Section 2 of RFC XXXX. Section 2 of RFC XXXX.
Information about the current status of this document, any Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/ietf.html http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.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 the IAB are not a candidate for any level of publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
Information about the current status of this document, any Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/iab.html http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.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
skipping to change at page 14, line 46 skipping to change at page 14, line 49
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 the IRTF are not a candidate for any level of publication by the IRTF are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."
Information about the current status of this document, any Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/irtf.html http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.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 28 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: headers-boilerplates.xml 74 2009-03-02 12:42:05Z olaf $ $Id: headers-boilerplates.xml 83 2009-04-23 06:35:05Z 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 17, line 32 skipping to change at page 17, line 32
Fixed inconsistency: Request for feedback only appeared in the Fixed inconsistency: Request for feedback only appeared in the
Experimental category, moved this to the "Update to this memo Experimental category, moved this to the "Update to this memo
section" section"
Changed the content of the 3rd paragraph of document status to be a Changed the content of the 3rd paragraph of document status to be a
static (per stream) pointer to finding more information about the static (per stream) pointer to finding more information about the
document status, errata, and providing feedback. This was to address document status, errata, and providing feedback. This was to address
the concern of having dynamic (per-document) text in the boilerplate, the concern of having dynamic (per-document) text in the boilerplate,
if this "updates" section was document specific. if this "updates" section was document specific.
D.8. version 07->08
Introduced language to clarify that the RFC Editor is responsible for
details with respect to style and formatting.
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
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 60 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/