idnits 2.17.1 draft-flanagan-7322bis-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document obsoletes RFC7322, but the header doesn't have an 'Obsoletes:' line to match this. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (July 17, 2017) is 2467 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC6146' is mentioned on line 307, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6147' is mentioned on line 308, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6144' is mentioned on line 309, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6959' is mentioned on line 314, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Required' is mentioned on line 431, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 793, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC3080' is mentioned on line 768, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC8157' is mentioned on line 772, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6323' is mentioned on line 786, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6429' is mentioned on line 801, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 6429 (Obsoleted by RFC 9293) == Missing Reference: 'STD13' is mentioned on line 845, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'STDXXX' is mentioned on line 832, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'STD72' is mentioned on line 826, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'SYMBOLIC-TAG' is mentioned on line 915, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC-STYLE' is mentioned on line 870, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'ErrNumber' is mentioned on line 878, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Err1912' is mentioned on line 881, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'IEEE.802.15.4' is mentioned on line 921, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'IEEE802.1Q' is mentioned on line 928, but not defined -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (ref. 'BCP26') (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1150 (ref. 'FYI90') (Obsoleted by RFC 6360) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6635 (Obsoleted by RFC 8728) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 21 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group H. Flanagan 3 Internet-Draft S. Ginoza 4 Intended status: Informational RFC Editor 5 Expires: January 18, 2018 July 17, 2017 7 RFC Style Guide 8 draft-flanagan-7322bis-01 10 Abstract 12 This document describes the fundamental and unique style conventions 13 and editorial policies currently in use for the RFC Series. It 14 captures the RFC Editor's basic requirements and offers guidance 15 regarding the style and structure of an RFC. Additional guidance is 16 captured on a website that reflects the experimental nature of that 17 guidance and prepares it for future inclusion in the RFC Style Guide. 18 This document obsoletes RFC 7322, "RFC Style Guide". 20 Status of This Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 18, 2018. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2. RFC Editor's Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3. RFC Style Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 3.1. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 3.2. Punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 3.2.1. RFCs as Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3.3. DNS Names and URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 3.4. Capitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 3.5. Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 3.6. Abbreviation Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 3.7. Images and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 4. Structure of an RFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 4.1. First-Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 4.1.1. Author/Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 4.1.2. Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 4.1.3. ISSN: 2070-1721 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 4.1.4. Updates and Obsoletes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 4.2. Document Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 4.3. Abstract Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 4.4. RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 4.5. Status of This Memo Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 4.6. Copyright, Licenses, and IPR Boilerplate Section . . . . 13 76 4.7. Table of Contents Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 77 4.8. Body of the Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 4.8.1. Introduction Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 79 4.8.2. Requirements Language Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 4.8.3. IANA Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 4.8.4. Internationalization Considerations Section . . . . . 14 82 4.8.5. Security Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . 15 83 4.8.6. References Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 84 4.9. Appendices Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 85 4.10. Acknowledgements Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 86 4.11. Contributors Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 87 4.12. Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 88 4.13. Author's Address or Authors' Addresses Section . . . . . 21 89 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 90 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 91 7. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 92 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 93 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 94 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 95 Appendix A. Related Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 96 A.1. Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 97 A.2. Returning an I-D to the Document Stream . . . . . . . . . 26 98 A.3. Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages . . . . . 26 99 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 101 1. Introduction 103 The ultimate goal of the RFC publication process is to produce 104 documents that are readable, clear, and consistent. The basic 105 formatting conventions for RFCs were established in the 1970s by the 106 original RFC Editor, Jon Postel. This document describes the 107 fundamental and unique style conventions and editorial policies 108 currently in use for the RFC Series [RFC4844] and is intended as a 109 stable, infrequently updated reference for authors, editors, and 110 reviewers. 112 The RFC Editor also maintains a web portion of the Style Guide (see 113 Appendix A.3) that describes issues as they are raised and indicates 114 how the RFC Editor intends to address them. As new style issues 115 arise, the RFC Editor will first address them on the web portion of 116 the Style Guide [STYLE-WEB]. These topics may become part of the RFC 117 Style Guide when it is revised. 119 The world of publishing has generally accepted rules for grammar, 120 punctuation, capitalization, sentence length and complexity, etc. 121 The RFC Editor generally follows these accepted rules as defined by 122 the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) [CMOS], with a few important 123 exceptions to avoid ambiguity in complex technical prose and to 124 handle mixtures of text and computer languages, or to preserve 125 historical formatting rules. This document presents these exceptions 126 as applied or recommended by the RFC Editor. 128 All RFCs begin as Internet-Drafts (also referred to as I-Ds), and a 129 well-written and properly constructed Internet-Draft [ID-GUIDE] 130 provides a strong basis for a good RFC. The RFC Editor accepts 131 Internet-Drafts from specified streams for publication [RFC4844] and 132 applies the rules and guidelines for the RFC Series during the 133 editorial process. 135 2. RFC Editor's Philosophy 137 Authors may find it helpful to understand the RFC Editor's goals 138 during the publication process, namely to: 140 o Prepare the document according to RFC style and format. 142 o Make the document as clear, consistent, and readable as possible. 144 o Correct larger content/clarity issues; flag any unclear passages 145 for author review. 147 o Fix inconsistencies (e.g., terms that appear in various forms, 148 inconsistent capitalization, discrepancies between a figure and 149 the text that describes it). 151 We strive for consistency within: 153 a. the document, 155 b. a cluster of documents [CLUSTER], and 157 c. the series of RFCs on the subject matter. 159 The editorial process of the RFC Editor is not an additional 160 technical review of the document. Where the RFC Editor may suggest 161 changes in wording for clarity and readability, it is up to the 162 author, working group, or stream-approving body to determine whether 163 the changes have an impact on the technical meaning of the document 164 [RFC4844]. If the original wording is a more accurate representation 165 of the technical content being described in the document, it takes 166 precedence over editorial conventions. 168 The activity of editing sometimes creates a tension between author 169 and editor. The RFC Editor attempts to minimize this conflict for 170 RFC publication while continually striving to produce a uniformly 171 excellent document series. The RFC Editor refers to this fundamental 172 tension as "editorial balance,"" and maintaining this balance is a 173 continuing concern for the RFC Editor. There is a prime directive 174 that must rule over grammatical conventions: do not change the 175 intended meaning of the text. 177 If the RFC Editor cannot edit a document without serious risk of 178 altering the meaning, it may be returned to the stream-approving body 179 for review. See Appendix A.2 for more information. 181 3. RFC Style Conventions 183 This Style Guide does not use terminology as defined in RFC 2119 184 [BCP14]. In this document, lowercase use of "must" and "should" 185 indicates changes the RFC Editor will make automatically to conform 186 with this Style Guide versus those that may be questioned if not 187 applied. The lowercase "must" indicates those changes that will be 188 applied automatically and are not at the discretion of the authors. 189 The lowercase "should" indicates the RFC Editor's recommended use, 190 but conformance with the recommendations is not required; the RFC 191 Editor may question whether the guidance may be applied. 193 3.1. Language 195 The RFC publication language is English. Spelling may be either 196 American or British, as long as an individual document is internally 197 consistent. Where both American and British English spelling are 198 used within a document or cluster of documents, the text will be 199 modified to be consistent with American English spelling. 201 3.2. Punctuation 203 o A comma is used before the last item of a series, e.g., 205 "TCP service is reliable, ordered, and full duplex" 207 o When quoting literal text, punctuation is placed outside quotation 208 marks, e.g., 210 Search for the string "Error Found". 212 When quoting general text, such as general text from another RFC, 213 punctuation may be included within the quotation marks, e.g., 215 RFC 4844 indicates that "RFCs are available free of charge to 216 anyone via the Internet. " 218 Quotation marks are not necessary when text is formatted as a 219 block quotation. 221 3.2.1. RFCs as Compounds 223 Whenever possible: 225 o Hyphenated compounds formed with RFC numbers should be avoided; 226 this can be accomplished by: rewording the sentence (e.g., 227 [RFC5011]-style rollover -> rollover as described in RFC 5011). 229 o adding a note in either the Terminology or Conventions section 230 mentioning the RFC so that other occurrences throughout the text 231 will be understood by the reader to be in the style of said RFC 232 (e.g., This document uses the term "rollover" as defined in RFC 233 5011.). 235 If use of an RFC number in attributive position is unavoidable, the 236 preferred form should appear as in the example "RFC 5011-style 237 rollover". That is: 239 o no hyphen between "RFC" and the number (don't use RFC-5011-style 240 rollover) 242 o avoid hyphenating citations with text (don't use [RFC5011]-style 243 rollover) 245 3.3. DNS Names and URIs 247 DNS names, whether or not in URIs, that are used as generic examples 248 in RFCs should use the particular examples defined in "Reserved Top 249 Level DNS Names" [BCP32], to avoid accidental conflicts. 251 Angle brackets are strongly recommended around URIs [STD66], e.g., 253 255 The use of HTTPS rather than HTTP is strongly encouraged. 257 3.4. Capitalization 259 o Capitalization must be consistent within the document and ideally 260 should be consistent with related RFCs. Refer to the online table 261 of decisions on consistent usage of terms in RFCs [TERMS]. 263 o Per CMOS guidelines, the major words in RFC titles and section 264 titles should be capitalized (this is sometimes called "title 265 case"). Typically, all words in a title will be capitalized, 266 except for internal articles, prepositions, and conjunctions. 268 o Section titles that are in sentence form will follow typical 269 sentence capitalization. 271 o Titles of figures may be in sentence form or use title case. 273 o Some terms related to the various roles or parts of the streams 274 authoring RFCs should be used consistently. For example, when the 275 term 'working group' or 'research group' is used as part of a 276 specific group name, it will be capitalized (e.g., kitten Working 277 Group, Crypto Forum Research Group). When used to generally refer 278 to groups, it will be downcased. 280 3.5. Citations 282 o References and citations must match. That is, there must be a 283 reference for each citation used, and vice versa. 285 o Citations must be enclosed in square brackets (e.g., "[CITE1]"). 287 o Citations are restricted to ASCII-only characters.[RFC7997] 288 o Citations must begin with a number or a letter, and may contain 289 digits, letters, colons, hyphens, underscores, or dots. 291 * Example: "[IEEE.802.15.4]" rather than "[.802.15.4]" 293 * Example: "[RFC2119]" rather than "[RFC 2119]" 295 o Citations may not include spaces, commas, quotation marks, or 296 other punctuation (!, ?, etc.). 298 * Example: "See RFC 2119 [BCP14] for more information." 300 o Cross-references within the body of the memo and to other RFCs 301 must use section numbers rather than page numbers, as pagination 302 may change per format and device. 304 o An citation may a) follow the subject for which it is being cited 305 or b) be read as part of the text. For example: 307 * a) As part of the transition to IPv6, NAT64 [RFC6146] and DNS64 308 [RFC6147] technologies will be utilized by some access networks 309 to provide IPv4 connectivity for IPv6-only nodes [RFC6144]. 311 or 313 b) Note that SAVI raises a number of important privacy 314 considerations that are discussed more fully in [RFC6959]. 316 We recommend using a) and strongly recommend consistent use of one 317 style throughout. 319 3.6. Abbreviation Rules 321 Abbreviations should be expanded in document titles and upon first 322 use in the document. The full expansion of the text should be 323 followed by the abbreviation itself in parentheses. The exception is 324 an abbreviation that is so common that the readership of RFCs can be 325 expected to recognize it immediately; examples include (but are not 326 limited to) TCP, IP, SNMP, and HTTP. The online list of 327 abbreviations [ABBR] provides guidance. Some cases are marginal, and 328 the RFC Editor will make the final judgment, weighing obscurity 329 against complexity. 331 Note: The online list of abbreviations is not exhaustive or 332 definitive. It is a list of abbreviations appearing in RFCs and 333 sometimes reflects discussions with authors, Working Group Chairs, 334 and/or Area Directors (ADs). Note that some abbreviations have 335 multiple expansions. Additionally, this list includes some terms 336 that look like abbreviations but that are actually fixed names for 337 things and hence cannot and should not be expanded. These are noted 338 as "No Expansion". 340 3.7. Images and Figures 342 The goal of having images within an RFC is to convey information. A 343 good diagram or image expresses information quickly, clearly, and 344 with low chance of misunderstanding. Technically correct but 345 confusing images get in the way of understanding and implementation. 347 o Images should be legible when displayed on a standard screen 348 (1920x1080) and printable on either A4 or US Letter paper. Any 349 text within the diagram should be readable at that resolution. 351 o Authors should use black on white, not white on black. No color 352 or greyscale [RFC7990][RFC7996] 354 o Keep your diagrams as simple as possible. If an object in the 355 diagram is not immediately relevant, leave it out. If you have 356 several ideas you want to convey, consider using more than one 357 diagram. 359 o San-serif fonts are generally considered more readable for digital 360 material. [citation needed] 362 o The style of diagrams within an RFC should be consistent both 363 within a single RFC and within a cluster of RFCs (fonts, shapes, 364 lines). For example, if you you use a dashed line to indicate a 365 certain type of packet flow, then continue to use that style of 366 line consistently. 368 o Line styles, including thickness, color, and arrow types, are easy 369 methods to convey a particular meaning to the reader. 370 Consistently use the same line styles to convey a particular 371 meaning throughout all diagrams within an RFC in order to avoid 372 confusing the reader. 374 o Flowcharts: avoid crossing the lines if possible. 376 4. Structure of an RFC 378 A published RFC will largely contain the elements in the following 379 list. Some of these sections are required, as noted. Those sections 380 marked with "*" will be supplied by the RFC Editor during the 381 editorial process when necessary. The rules for each of these 382 elements are described in more detail below. 384 First-page header * [Required] 386 Title [Required] 388 Abstract [Required] 390 RFC Editor or Stream Note * [Upon request] 392 Status of This Memo * [Required] 394 Copyright Notice * [Required] 396 Table of Contents * [Required] 398 Body of the Memo [Required] 400 1. Introduction [Required] 402 2. Requirements Language (RFC 2119) 404 3. ... 406 MAIN BODY OF THE TEXT 408 6. ... 410 7. IANA Considerations [Required] 412 8. Internationalization Considerations 414 9. Security Considerations [Required] 416 10. References 418 10.1. Normative References 420 10.2. Informative References 422 Appendix A. 424 Appendix B. 426 Acknowledgements 428 Contributors 429 Index 431 Author's Address [Required] 433 Within the body of the memo, the order shown above is strongly 434 recommended. Exceptions may be questioned. Outside the body of the 435 memo, the order above is required. The section numbers above are for 436 illustrative purposes; they are not intended to correspond to 437 required numbering in an RFC. 439 The elements preceding the body of the memo should not be numbered. 440 Typically, the body of the memo will have numbered sections and the 441 appendices will be labeled with letters. Any sections that appear 442 after the appendices should not be numbered or labeled (e.g., see 443 "Contributors" above). 445 4.1. First-Page Header 447 Headers will follow the format described in "RFC Streams, Headers, 448 and Boilerplates" [RFC7841] and its successors. In addition, the 449 following conventions will apply. 451 4.1.1. Author/Editor 453 The final determination of who should be listed as an author or 454 editor on an RFC is made by the stream, as is whether or not 455 including author affiliation is required. 457 The author's name (initial followed by family name) appears on the 458 first line of the heading. Some variation, such as additional 459 initials or capitalization of family name, is acceptable. Once the 460 author has selected how their name should appear, they should use 461 that display consistently in all of their documents. 463 The total number of authors or editors on the first page is generally 464 limited to five individuals and their affiliations. If there is a 465 request for more than five authors, the stream-approving body needs 466 to consider if one or two editors should have primary responsibility 467 for this document, with the other individuals listed in the 468 Contributors or Acknowledgements section. There must be a direct 469 correlation of authors and editors in the document header and the 470 Authors' Addresses section. These are the individuals that must sign 471 off on the document during the AUTH48 process and respond to 472 inquiries, such as errata. 474 4.1.2. Organization 476 The author's organization is indicated on the line following the 477 author's name. 479 For multiple authors, each author name appears on its own line, 480 followed by that author's organization. When more than one author is 481 affiliated with the same organization, the organization can be 482 "factored out," appearing only once following the corresponding 483 Author lines. However, such factoring is inappropriate when it would 484 force an unacceptable reordering of author names. 486 If an author cannot or will not provide an affiliation for any 487 reason, "Independent", "Individual Contributor", "Retired", or some 488 other term that appropriately describes the author's affiliation may 489 be used. Alternatively, a blank line may be included in the document 490 header when no affiliation is provided. 492 4.1.3. ISSN: 2070-1721 494 The RFC Series has been assigned an International Standard Serial 495 Number of 2070-1721 [ISO3297]. It will be included by the RFC 496 Editor. 498 4.1.4. Updates and Obsoletes 500 When an RFC obsoletes or updates a previously published RFC or RFCs, 501 this information is included in the document header. For example: 503 "Updates: nnnn" or "Updates: nnnn, ..., nnnn" 505 "Obsoletes: nnnn" or "Obsoletes: nnnn, ..., nnnn" 507 If the document updates or obsoletes more than one document, numbers 508 will be listed in ascending order. 510 4.2. Document Title 512 The title must be centered below the rest of the heading, preceded by 513 two blank lines and followed by one blank line. 515 Choosing a good title for an RFC can be a challenge. A good title 516 should fairly represent the scope and purpose of the document without 517 being either too general or too specific and lengthy. 519 Abbreviations in a title must generally be expanded when first 520 encountered (see Section 3.6 for additional guidance on 521 abbreviations). 523 It is often helpful to follow the expansion with the parenthesized 524 abbreviation, as in the following example: 526 Encoding Rules for the 527 Common Routing Encapsulation Extension Protocol (CREEP) 529 The RFC Editor recommends that documents describing a particular 530 company's private protocol should bear a title of the form "Foo's ... 531 Protocol" (where Foo is a company name), to clearly differentiate it 532 from a protocol of more general applicability. 534 4.3. Abstract Section 536 Every RFC must have an Abstract that provides a concise and 537 comprehensive overview of the purpose and contents of the entire 538 document, to give a technically knowledgeable reader a general 539 overview of the function of the document. 541 Composing a useful Abstract generally requires thought and care. 542 Usually, an Abstract should begin with a phrase like "This memo ..." 543 or "This document ..." A satisfactory Abstract can often be 544 constructed in part from material within the Introduction section, 545 but an effective Abstract may be shorter, less detailed, and perhaps 546 broader in scope than the Introduction. Simply copying and pasting 547 the first few paragraphs of the Introduction is allowed, but it may 548 result in an Abstract that is both incomplete and redundant. Note 549 also that an Abstract is not a substitute for an Introduction; the 550 RFC should be self-contained as if there were no Abstract. 552 Similarly, the Abstract should be complete in itself. It will appear 553 in isolation in publication announcements and in the online index of 554 RFCs. Therefore, the Abstract must not contain citations. 556 If the RFC updates or obsoletes an earlier RFC, that should be 557 mentioned in the abstract as well. 559 4.4. RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section 561 A stream-approving body may approve the inclusion of an editorial 562 note to explain anything unusual about the process that led to the 563 document's publication or to note a correction. In this case, a 564 stream note section will contain such a note. 566 Additionally, an RFC Editor Note section may contain a note inserted 567 by the RFC Editor to highlight special circumstances surrounding an 568 RFC. 570 4.5. Status of This Memo Section 572 The RFC Editor will supply an appropriate "Status of This Memo" as 573 defined in RFC [RFC7841] and "Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream" 574 [IAB-FORM]. 576 4.6. Copyright, Licenses, and IPR Boilerplate Section 578 The full copyright and license notices are available on the IETF 579 Trust Legal Provisions documents website [IETF-TRUST]. 581 4.7. Table of Contents Section 583 A Table of Contents (TOC) is required in all RFCs. It must be 584 positioned after the Copyright Notice and before the Introduction. 586 4.8. Body of the Memo 588 Following the TOC is the body of the memo. 590 Each RFC must include an Introduction section that (among other 591 things) explains the motivation for the RFC and (if appropriate) 592 describes the applicability of the document, e.g., whether it 593 specifies a protocol, provides a discussion of some problem, is 594 simply of interest to the Internet community, or provides a status 595 report on some activity. The body of the memo and the Abstract must 596 be self-contained and separable. This may result in some duplication 597 of text between the Abstract and the Introduction; this is 598 acceptable. 600 4.8.1. Introduction Section 602 The Introduction section should always be the first section following 603 the TOC (except in the case of MIB module documents). While 604 "Introduction" is recommended, authors may choose alternate titles 605 such as "Overview" or "Background". These alternates are acceptable. 607 For MIB module documents, common practice has been for "The Internet- 608 Standard Management Framework" [MIB-BOILER] text to appear as 609 Section 1. 611 4.8.2. Requirements Language Section 613 Some documents use certain capitalized words ("MUST", "SHOULD", etc.) 614 to specify precise requirement levels for technical features. RFC 615 2119 [BCP14] defines a default interpretation of these capitalized 616 words in IETF documents. If this interpretation is used, RFC 2119 617 must be cited (as specified in RFC 2119) and included as a normative 618 reference. Otherwise, the correct interpretation must be specified 619 in the document. 621 This section must appear as part of the body of the memo (as defined 622 by this document). It must appear as part of, or subsequent to, the 623 Introduction section. 625 These words are considered part of the technical content of the 626 document and are intended to provide guidance to implementers about 627 specific technical features, generally governed by considerations of 628 interoperability. RFC 2119 says: 630 Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care 631 and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is 632 actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has 633 potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For 634 example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method 635 on implementers where the method is not required for 636 interoperability. 638 4.8.3. IANA Considerations Section 640 For guidance on how to register IANA-related values or create new 641 registries to be managed by IANA, see "Guidelines for Writing an IANA 642 Considerations Section in RFCs" [BCP26]. 644 The RFC Editor will update text accordingly after the IANA 645 assignments have been made. It is helpful for authors to clearly 646 identify where text should be updated to reflect the newly assigned 647 values. For example, the use of "TBD1", "TBD2", etc., is recommended 648 in the IANA Considerations section and in the body of the memo. 650 If the authors have provided values to be assigned by IANA, the RFC 651 Editor will verify that the values inserted by the authors match 652 those that have actually been registered on the IANA site. When 653 writing a given value, consistent use of decimal or hexadecimal is 654 recommended. 656 If any of the IANA-related information is not clear, the RFC Editor 657 will work with IANA to send queries to the authors to ensure that 658 assignments and values are properly inserted. 660 4.8.4. Internationalization Considerations Section 662 All RFCs that deal with internationalization issues should have a 663 section describing those issues; see "IETF Policy on Character Sets 664 and Languages" [BCP18], Section 6, for more information. 666 4.8.5. Security Considerations Section 668 All RFCs must contain a section that discusses the security 669 considerations relevant to the specification; see "Guidelines for 670 Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations" [BCP72] for more 671 information. 673 Note that additional boilerplate material for RFCs containing MIB and 674 YANG modules also exists. See "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB 675 Modules" [MIB-SEC] and "yang module security considerations" 676 [YANG-SEC] for details. 678 4.8.6. References Section 680 The reference list is solely for recording reference entries. 681 Introductory text is not allowed. 683 The RFC style allows the use of any of a variety of reference styles, 684 as long as they are used consistently within a document. However, 685 where necessary, some reference styles have been described for use 686 within the Series. See the examples in this document. 688 The RFC Editor ensures that references to other RFCs refer to the 689 most current RFC available on that topic (unless provided with a 690 reason not to do so). When referring to an obsoleted document, it is 691 common practice to also refer to the most recent version. 693 A reference to an RFC that has been assigned an STD [RFC1311], BCP 694 [RFC1818], or FYI [FYI90] sub-series number must include the sub- 695 series number of the document. Note that the FYI series was ended by 696 RFC 6360. RFCs that were published with an FYI sub-series number and 697 still maintain the FYI number must include the sub-series number in 698 the reference. 700 Reference lists must indicate whether each reference is normative or 701 informative, where normative references are essential to implementing 702 or understanding the content of the RFC and informative references 703 provide additional information. More information about normative and 704 informative references may be found in the IESG's statement 705 "Normative and Informative References" [REFS]. When both normative 706 and informative references exist, the references section should be 707 split into two subsections: 709 Templates are available on the RFC Editor website for the XML format 710 of certain references [REFEXAMPLE]. 712 s. References 713 s.1. Normative References 715 xxx 716 ... 717 xxx 719 s.2. Informative References 721 xxx 722 ... 723 xxx 725 References will generally appear in alphanumeric order by citation 726 tag. Where there are only normative or informative references, no 727 subsection is required; the top-level section should say "Normative 728 References" or "Informative References". 730 Normative references to Internet-Drafts will cause publication of the 731 RFC to be suspended until the referenced draft is also ready for 732 publication; the RFC Editor will then update the entry to refer to 733 the RFC and publish both documents simultaneously. 735 4.8.6.1. URIs in RFCs 737 The use of URIs in references is acceptable, as long as the URI is 738 the most stable (i.e., unlikely to change and expected to be 739 continuously available) and direct reference possible. The URI will 740 be verified as valid during the RFC editorial process. 742 If a dated URI (one that includes a timestamp for the page) is 743 available for a referenced web page, its use is required. 745 Note that URIs may not be the sole information provided for a 746 reference entry. 748 The use of HTTPS rather than HTTP is strongly encouraged. 750 4.8.6.2. Referencing RFCs 752 The following format is required for referencing RFCs. The Stream 753 abbreviation should be used; when no stream is available, as with 754 legacy RFCs, this may be left blank. 756 Note the ordering for multiple authors: the format of the name of the 757 last author listed is different than that of all previous authors in 758 the list. 760 For one author or editor: 762 [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC 763 Title", Stream, Sub-series number (if applicable), RFC number, DOI, 764 Date of publication, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc#. 766 Example: 768 [RFC3080] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core," 769 IETF, RFC 3080, DOI 10.17487/RFC3080, March 2001, https://www.rfc- 770 editor.org/info/rfc3080. 772 [RFC8157] Leymann, N., Heidemann, C., Zhang, M., Sarikaya, B., and M. 773 Cullen, "Huawei's GRE Tunnel Bonding Protocol", independent, RFC 774 8157, DOI 10.17487/RFC8157, May 2017, https://www.rfc- 775 editor.org/info/rfc8157. 777 For two authors or editors: 779 [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and First 780 initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", Stream, Sub- 781 series number (if applicable), RFC number, DOI, Date of publication, 782 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc#. 784 Example: 786 [RFC6323] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "Sender RTT Estimate Option 787 for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", IETF, RFC 6323, 788 DOI 10.17487/RFC6323, July 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ 789 rfc6323. 791 For three or more authors or editors: 793 [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), Last name, 794 First initial., Ed. (if applicable), and First initial. Last name, 795 Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-series number (if 796 applicable), RFC number, DOI, Date of publication, https://www.rfc- 797 editor.org/info/rfc#. 799 Example: 801 [RFC6429] Bashyam, M., Jethanandani, M., and A. Ramaiah, "TCP Sender 802 Clarification for Persist Condition", IETF, RFC 6429, DOI 10.17487/ 803 RFC6429, December 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6429. 805 4.8.6.3. Referencing STDs and BCPs 807 Internet Standards (STDs) and Best Current Practices (BCPs) may 808 consist of a single RFC or multiple RFCs. When an STD or BCP that 809 contains multiple RFCs is referenced, the reference entry should 810 include ALL of the RFCs comprising that sub-series. The authors 811 should refer to specific RFC numbers as part of the text (not as 812 citations) and cite the sub-series number. Inclusion of the URI to 813 the STD or BCP info page is recommended. The text should appear as 814 follows: 816 See RFC 1034 [STD13]. 818 For an STD or BCP that contains one RFC: 820 [STDXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC 821 Title", Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, DOI, Date of 822 publication, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std#. 824 Example: 826 [STD72] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail", 827 IETF, STD 72, RFC 6409, DOI 10.17487/RFC6409, November 2011, 828 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std72. 830 For an STD or BCP that contains two or more RFCs: 832 [STDXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC 833 Title", Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, DOI, Date of 834 publication. 836 Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) 837 and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable), 838 "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, DOI, 839 Date of publication. 841 843 Example: 845 [STD13] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 846 IETF, STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987. 848 Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 849 specification", IETF, STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, 850 November 1987. 852 854 4.8.6.4. Referencing Internet-Drafts 856 References to Internet-Drafts may only appear as informative 857 references. Given that several revisions of an I-D may be produced 858 in a short time frame, references must include the posting date 859 (month and year), the full Internet-Draft file name (including the 860 version number), and the phrase "Work in Progress". Authors may 861 reference multiple versions of an I-D. If the referenced I-D was 862 also later published as an RFC, then that RFC must also be listed. 864 [SYMBOLIC-TAG] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and 865 First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "I-D Title", Work in 866 Progress, draft-string-NN, Month Year. 868 Example: 870 [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", Work in 871 Progress, draft-flanagan-style-01, June 2013. 873 4.8.6.5. Referencing Errata 875 The following format is required when a reference to an erratum 876 report is necessary: 878 [ErrNumber] RFC Errata, Erratum ID number, RFC number, 879 . 881 [Err1912] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1912, RFC 2978, . 884 4.8.6.6. Referencing Other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) 886 The following format is suggested when referencing a document or 887 standard from another SDO in which authors are listed: 889 [SYMBOLIC-TAG] 891 Last name, First initial. and First initial. Last name, 893 "Document Title", Document reference number, Date of 895 publication, . 897 [W3C.REC-xml11] 899 Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., 901 Yergeau, F., and J. Cowan, "Extensible Markup Language 902 (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)", W3C Recommendation 904 REC-xml11-20060816, August 2006, 906 . 908 The order of authors in the list is the same as the order shown on 909 the actual document and that the common, abbreviated form of the SDO 910 is used. 912 Alternatively, when no list of authors is available, the following 913 format is recommended: 915 [SYMBOLIC-TAG] Organization, "Document Title", Document 916 reference number, Date of publication, 917 . 919 Example (undated; see note below): 921 [IEEE.802.15.4] 922 IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks", 923 IEEE 802.15.4, 924 . 926 Example (dated; see note below): 928 [IEEE802.1Q] IEEE, "Local and Metropolitan Area 929 Networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) 930 Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area 931 Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011, August 2011, 932 935 Per the IEEE coordination team, listing dates for IEEE standards is 936 not recommended unless there is a need to cite a particular section, 937 in which case the dated reference is appropriate. An RFC with a 938 dated IEEE reference suggests that the RFC only applies to that 939 specific IEEE specification. 941 4.8.6.7. Referencing Email on Mailing Lists 943 When referencing emails to mailing lists, the template provided here 944 should be used: 946 [reftag] Sender, A., "Subject: Subject line", message to the 948 listname mailing list, DD Month YYYY, . 950 4.9. Appendices Section 952 The RFC Editor recommends placing references before the Appendices. 953 Appendices should be labeled as "Appendix A. Title", "A.1. Title", 954 "Appendix B. Title", etc. 956 4.10. Acknowledgements Section 958 This optional section may be used instead of, or in addition to, a 959 Contributors section. It is often used by authors to publicly thank 960 those who have provided feedback regarding a document and to note any 961 documents from which text was borrowed. 963 4.11. Contributors Section 965 This optional section acknowledges those who have made significant 966 contributions to the document. 968 In a similar fashion to the Author's Address section, the RFC Editor 969 does not make the determination as to who should be listed as a 970 contributor to an RFC. The determination of who should be listed as 971 a contributor is made by the stream. 973 The Contributors section may include brief statements about the 974 nature of particular contributions (e.g., "Sam contributed 975 Section 3"), and it may also include affiliations of listed 976 contributors. At the discretion of the author(s), contact addresses 977 may also be included in the Contributors section, for those 978 contributors whose knowledge makes them useful future contacts for 979 information about the RFC. The format of any contact information 980 should be similar to the format of information in the Author's 981 Address section. 983 4.12. Index 985 If included, an index appears at the end of the document, immediately 986 before Author's Address section. 988 4.13. Author's Address or Authors' Addresses Section 990 This required section gives contact information for the author(s) 991 listed in the first-page header. 993 Contact information must include a long-lived email address and 994 optionally may include a postal address and/or telephone number. If 995 the postal address is included, it should include the country name, 996 using the English short name listed by the ISO 3166 Maintenance 997 Agency [ISO_OBP]. The purpose of this section is to (1) 998 unambiguously define author identity (e.g., the John Smith who works 999 for FooBar Systems) and (2) provide contact information for future 1000 readers who have questions or comments. 1002 The practice of munged email addresses (i.e., altering an email 1003 address to make it less readable to bots and web crawlers to avoid 1004 spam) is not appropriate in an archival document series. Author 1005 contact information is provided so that readers can easily contact 1006 the author with questions and/or comments. Address munging is not 1007 allowed in RFCs. 1009 5. Security Considerations 1011 This document has no security considerations. 1013 6. IANA Considerations 1015 This document has no IANA considerations. 1017 7. Change Log 1019 This section to be removed before publication. 1021 -00 to -01: Citation tag requirements more tightly specified; 1022 index moved; new errata URI added; capitalization of working/ 1023 research group specified 1025 8. References 1027 8.1. Normative References 1029 [STYLE-WEB] 1030 RFC Editor, "Web Portion of the Style Guide", 1031 . 1033 8.2. Informative References 1035 [ABBR] RFC Editor, "RFC Editor Abbreviations List", 1036 . 1039 [BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1040 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997, 1041 . 1043 [BCP18] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and 1044 Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998, 1045 . 1047 [BCP26] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an 1048 ANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 1049 2008, . 1051 [BCP32] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS 1052 Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999, . 1055 [BCP72] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC 1056 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 1057 2003, . 1059 [CLUSTER] RFC Editor, "Clusters in the RFC Editor Queue", 1060 . 1062 [CMOS] University of Chicago Press, 2010, "Chicago Manual of 1063 Style, 16th ed.", 2010. 1065 [FYI90] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction to 1066 the FYI Notes", FYI 90, RFC 1150, March 1990, 1067 . 1069 Housley, R., "Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series", RFC 6360, 1070 August 2011. 1072 [IAB-FORM] 1073 IAB, "Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream", 1074 . 1077 [ID-GUIDE] 1078 IETF, "Guidelines to Authors of Internet Drafts", 1079 . 1081 [IETF-TRUST] 1082 IETF Trust, "Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)", 1083 . 1085 [ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and 1086 documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, "Identification and 1087 description, Information and documentation - International 1088 standard serial number (ISSN)", September 2007. 1090 [ISO_OBP] ISO, "Online Browsing Platform (OBP)", 1091 . 1093 [MIB-BOILER] 1094 IETF OPS Area, "Boilerplate for IETF MIB Documents", 1095 . 1097 [MIB-SEC] IETF OPS Area, "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules", 1098 . 1101 [REFEXAMPLE] 1102 RFC Editor, "Reference Examples", . 1105 [REFS] IESG, "IESG Statement: Normative and Informative", 1106 . 1109 [RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, 1110 DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992, 1111 . 1113 [RFC1818] Postel, J., Li, T., and Y. Rekhter, "Best Current 1114 Practices", RFC 1818, DOI 10.17487/RFC1818, August 1995, 1115 . 1117 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 1118 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, 1119 July 2007, . 1121 [RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor 1122 Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June 1123 2012, . 1125 [RFC7841] Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed., 1126 "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841, 1127 DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016, 1128 . 1130 [RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990, 1131 DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016, 1132 . 1134 [RFC7996] Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC", 1135 RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016, 1136 . 1138 [RFC7997] Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in 1139 RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016, 1140 . 1142 [STD66] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 1143 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 1144 RFC 3986, January 2005, . 1147 [TERMS] RFC Editor, "Terms List", . 1150 [YANG-SEC] 1151 IETF Ops Area, "yang module security considerations", 1152 . 1155 Appendix A. Related Procedures 1157 The following procedures are related to the application and updating 1158 of the RFC Style Guide. 1160 A.1. Dispute Resolution 1162 There are competing rationales for some of the rules described in 1163 this Guide, and the RFC Editor has selected the ones that work best 1164 for the Series. However, at times, an author may have a disagreement 1165 with the RFC Production Center (RPC) over the application of Style 1166 Guide conventions. In such cases, the authors should discuss their 1167 concerns with the RPC. If no agreement can be reached between the 1168 RPC and the authors, the RFC Series Editor will, with input from the 1169 appropriate stream-approving body, make a final determination. If 1170 further resolution is required, the dispute resolution process as 1171 described in the RFC Editor Model [RFC6635] will be followed. 1173 A.2. Returning an I-D to the Document Stream 1175 For a given document, if the RFC Editor determines that it cannot be 1176 edited without serious risk of altering the meaning of the technical 1177 content or if the RFC Editor does not have the resources to provide 1178 the level of editing it needs, it may be sent back to the stream- 1179 approving body with a request to improve the clarity, consistency, 1180 and/or readability of the document. This is not to be considered a 1181 dispute with the author. 1183 A.3. Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages 1185 The RFC Series is continually evolving as a document series. This 1186 document focuses on the fundamental and stable requirements that must 1187 be met by an RFC. From time to time, the RFC Editor may offer less 1188 formal recommendations that authors may apply at their discretion; 1189 these recommendations may be found on the RFC Editor website 1190 "Guidelines for RFC Style" [STYLE-WEB]. 1192 When a new recommendation is made regarding the overall structure and 1193 formatting of RFCs, it will be published on that page and accepted 1194 for a period of time before the RFC Editor determines whether it 1195 should become part of the fundamental requirements in the RFC Style 1196 Guide or remain as a less formal recommendation. That period of time 1197 will vary, in part depending on the frequency with which authors 1198 encounter and apply the guidance. 1200 Authors' Addresses 1202 Heather Flanagan 1203 RFC Editor 1205 EMail: rse@rfc-editor.org 1206 URI: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2647-2220 1208 Sandy Ginoza 1209 RFC Editor 1211 EMail: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org 1212 URI: https://www.rfc-editor.org