idnits 2.17.1
draft-flanagan-7322bis-06.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 :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
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 (4 October 2020) is 1299 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Missing Reference: 'RFC6146' is mentioned on line 318, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'RFC6147' is mentioned on line 319, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'RFC6144' is mentioned on line 321, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'RFC6959' is mentioned on line 324, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'Required' is mentioned on line 427, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 772, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'RFC3080' is mentioned on line 746, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'RFC8157' is mentioned on line 750, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'RFC6323' is mentioned on line 765, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'RFC6429' is mentioned on line 781, but not defined
** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 6429 (Obsoleted by RFC 9293)
== Missing Reference: 'RFC5741' is mentioned on line 804, but not defined
** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 5741 (Obsoleted by RFC 7841)
== Missing Reference: 'STD13' is mentioned on line 836, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'STDXXX' is mentioned on line 824, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'STD72' is mentioned on line 817, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'SYMBOLIC-TAG' is mentioned on line 969, 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: 'IANA-SYMBOLIC-TAG' is mentioned on line 889, but not
defined
== Missing Reference: 'IEEE.802.15.4' is mentioned on line 931, but not
defined
== Missing Reference: 'IEEE802.1Q' is mentioned on line 938, but not defined
== Missing Reference: 'ISOC-MANRS' is mentioned on line 972, but not defined
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (ref.
'BCP26') (Obsoleted by RFC 8126)
-- 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: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 24 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Network Working Group J. Levine, Ed.
3 Internet-Draft Temporary RFC Series Project Manager
4 Obsoletes: 7322 (if approved) S. Ginoza
5 Intended status: Informational RFC Editor
6 Expires: 7 April 2021 4 October 2020
8 RFC Style Guide
9 draft-flanagan-7322bis-06
11 Abstract
13 This document describes the fundamental and unique style conventions
14 and editorial policies currently in use for the RFC Series. It
15 captures the RFC Editor's basic requirements and offers guidance
16 regarding the style and structure of an RFC. Additional guidance is
17 captured on a website that reflects the experimental nature of that
18 guidance and prepares it for future inclusion in the RFC Style Guide.
19 This document obsoletes RFC 7322, "RFC Style Guide".
21 Status of This Memo
23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
29 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
36 This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 April 2021.
38 Copyright Notice
40 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
41 document authors. All rights reserved.
43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
45 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
46 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
47 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
48 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
49 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
50 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
52 Table of Contents
54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
55 2. RFC Editor's Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
56 3. RFC Style Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
63 3.6. Abbreviation Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
64 3.7. Images and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
65 4. Structure of an RFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
66 4.1. First-Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
67 4.1.1. Author/Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
68 4.1.2. Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
69 4.1.3. ISSN: 2070-1721 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
70 4.1.4. Updates and Obsoletes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
71 4.2. Document Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
72 4.3. Abstract Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
73 4.4. RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
78 4.8.1. Introduction Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
79 4.8.2. Requirements Language Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
80 4.8.3. IANA Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
81 4.8.4. Internationalization Considerations Section . . . . . 15
82 4.8.5. Security Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . 15
83 4.8.6. References Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
84 4.9. Appendices Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
85 4.10. Acknowledgements Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
86 4.11. Contributors Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
87 4.12. Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
88 4.13. Author's Address or Authors' Addresses Section . . . . . 23
89 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
90 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
91 7. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
92 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
93 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
94 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
95 Appendix A. Related Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
96 A.1. Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
97 A.2. Returning an I-D to the Document Stream . . . . . . . . . 27
98 A.3. Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages . . . . . 27
99 Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
100 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
102 1. Introduction
104 The ultimate goal of the RFC publication process is to produce
105 documents that are readable, clear, and consistent. The basic
106 formatting conventions for RFCs were established in the 1970s by the
107 original RFC Editor, Jon Postel. This document describes the
108 fundamental and unique style conventions and editorial policies
109 currently in use for the RFC Series [RFC4844] and is intended as a
110 stable, infrequently updated reference for authors, editors, and
111 reviewers.
113 The RFC Editor also maintains a web portion of the Style Guide (see
114 Appendix A.3) that describes issues as they are raised and indicates
115 how the RFC Editor intends to address them. As new style issues
116 arise, the RFC Editor will first address them on the web portion of
117 the Style Guide [STYLE-WEB]. These topics may become part of the RFC
118 Style Guide when it is revised.
120 The world of publishing has generally accepted rules for grammar,
121 punctuation, capitalization, sentence length and complexity, etc.
122 The RFC Editor generally follows these accepted rules as defined by
123 the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) [CMOS], with a few important
124 exceptions to avoid ambiguity in complex technical prose and to
125 handle mixtures of text and computer languages, or to preserve
126 historical formatting rules. This document presents these exceptions
127 as applied or recommended by the RFC Editor.
129 All RFCs begin as Internet-Drafts (also referred to as I-Ds), and a
130 well-written and properly constructed Internet-Draft [ID-GUIDE]
131 provides a strong basis for a good RFC. The RFC Editor accepts
132 Internet-Drafts from specified streams for publication [RFC4844] and
133 applies the rules and guidelines for the RFC Series during the
134 editorial process.
136 2. RFC Editor's Philosophy
138 Authors may find it helpful to understand the RFC Editor's goals
139 during the publication process, namely to:
141 * Prepare the document according to RFC style and format.
143 * Make the document as clear, consistent, and readable as possible.
145 * Correct larger content/clarity issues; flag any unclear passages
146 for author review.
148 * Fix inconsistencies (e.g., terms that appear in various forms,
149 inconsistent capitalization, discrepancies between a figure and
150 the text that describes it).
152 We strive for consistency within:
154 a. the document,
156 b. a cluster of documents [CLUSTER], and
158 c. the series of RFCs on the subject matter.
160 The editorial process of the RFC Editor is not an additional
161 technical review of the document. Where the RFC Editor may suggest
162 changes in wording for clarity and readability, it is up to the
163 author, working group, or stream-approving body to determine whether
164 the changes have an impact on the technical meaning of the document
165 [RFC4844]. If the original wording is a more accurate representation
166 of the technical content being described in the document, it takes
167 precedence over editorial conventions.
169 The activity of editing sometimes creates a tension between author
170 and editor. The RFC Editor attempts to minimize this conflict for
171 RFC publication while continually striving to produce a uniformly
172 excellent document series. The RFC Editor refers to this fundamental
173 tension as "editorial balance," and maintaining this balance is a
174 continuing concern for the RFC Editor. There is a prime directive
175 that must rule over grammatical conventions: do not change the
176 intended meaning of the text.
178 If the RFC Editor cannot edit a document without serious risk of
179 altering the meaning, it may be returned to the stream-approving body
180 for review. See Appendix A.2 for more information.
182 3. RFC Style Conventions
184 This Style Guide does not use terminology as defined in RFC 2119
185 [BCP14]. In this document, lowercase use of "must" and "should"
186 indicates changes the RFC Editor will make automatically to conform
187 with this Style Guide versus those that may be questioned if not
188 applied. The lowercase "must" indicates those changes that will be
189 applied automatically and are not at the discretion of the authors.
190 The lowercase "should" indicates the RFC Editor's recommended use,
191 but conformance with the recommendations is not required; the RFC
192 Editor may question whether the guidance may be applied.
194 3.1. Language
196 The RFC publication language is English. Spelling may be either
197 American or British, as long as an individual document is internally
198 consistent. Where both American and British English spelling are
199 used within a document or cluster of documents, the text will be
200 modified to be consistent with American English spelling.
202 3.2. Punctuation
204 1. A comma is used before the last item of a series, e.g.,
206 "TCP service is reliable, ordered, and full duplex"
208 2. When quoting literal text, punctuation is placed outside
209 quotation marks, e.g.,
211 Search for the string "Error Found".
213 When quoting general text, such as general text from another RFC,
214 punctuation may be included within the quotation marks, e.g.,
216 RFC 4844 indicates that "RFCs are available free of charge to
217 anyone via the Internet."
219 Quotation marks are not necessary when text is formatted as a
220 block quotation.
222 3.2.1. RFCs as Compounds
224 Whenever possible:
226 * Hyphenated compounds formed with RFC numbers should be avoided;
227 this can be accomplished by: rewording the sentence (e.g., change
228 "[RFC5011]-style rollover" to "rollover as described in RFC
229 5011").
231 * adding a note in either the Terminology or Conventions section
232 mentioning the RFC so that other occurrences throughout the text
233 will be understood by the reader to be in the style of said RFC
234 (e.g., This document uses the term "rollover" as defined in RFC
235 5011.).
237 If use of an RFC number in attributive position is unavoidable, the
238 preferred form should appear as in the example "RFC 5011-style
239 rollover". That is:
241 * no hyphen between "RFC" and the number (don't use RFC-5011-style
242 rollover)
244 * avoid hyphenating citations with text (don't use [RFC5011]-style
245 rollover)
247 3.3. DNS Names and URIs
249 DNS names, whether or not in URIs, that are used as generic examples
250 in RFCs should use the particular examples defined in "Reserved Top
251 Level DNS Names" [BCP32], to avoid accidental conflicts.
253 Angle brackets are strongly recommended around URIs [STD66], e.g.,
255
257 The use of HTTPS rather than HTTP is strongly encouraged.
259 3.4. Capitalization
261 1. Capitalization must be consistent within the document and ideally
262 should be consistent with related RFCs. Refer to the online
263 table of decisions on consistent usage of terms in RFCs [TERMS].
265 2. Per CMOS guidelines, the major words in RFC titles and section
266 titles should be capitalized (this is sometimes called "title
267 case"). Typically, all words in a title will be capitalized,
268 except for internal articles, prepositions, and conjunctions.
270 3. Section titles that are in sentence form will follow typical
271 sentence capitalization.
273 4. Titles of figures may be in sentence form or use title case.
275 5. Some terms related to the various roles or parts of the streams
276 authoring RFCs should be used consistently. For example, when
277 the term 'working group' or 'research group' is used as part of a
278 specific group name, it will be capitalized (e.g., kitten Working
279 Group, Crypto Forum Research Group). When used to generally
280 refer to groups, it will be downcased.
282 3.5. Citations
284 The most important function of a citation is to point to a reference
285 so that a reader may follow up on additional material that is
286 important in some way to understanding or implementing the content in
287 an RFC. This section offers guidance on the requirements and
288 recommendations for citation format within an RFC.
290 1. References and citations must match. That is, there must be a
291 reference for each citation used, and vice versa.
293 2. Citations must be enclosed in square brackets (e.g., "[CITE1]").
295 3. Citations are restricted to ASCII-only characters, as described
296 in "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs" [RFC7997].
298 4. Citations must begin with a number or a letter, and may contain
299 digits, letters, colons, hyphens, underscores, or dots.
301 * Example: "[IEEE.802.15.4]" rather than "[.802.15.4]"
303 * Example: "[RFC2119]" rather than "[RFC 2119]"
305 5. Citations may not include spaces, commas, quotation marks, or
306 other punctuation (!, ?, etc.), and should be in-line with the
307 normal line of type.
309 * Example: "See RFC 2119 [BCP14] for more information."
311 6. Cross-references within the body of the memo and to other RFCs
312 must use section numbers rather than page numbers, as pagination
313 may change per format and device.
315 7. A citation may A) follow the subject to which the citation
316 applies or B) be read as part of the text. For example:
318 a. As part of the transition to IPv6, NAT64 [RFC6146] and DNS64
319 [RFC6147] technologies will be utilized by some access
320 networks to provide IPv4 connectivity for IPv6-only nodes
321 [RFC6144].
323 b. Note that SAVI raises a number of important privacy
324 considerations that are discussed more fully in [RFC6959].
326 8. For a document referenced multiple times in running text, the
327 citation anchor must be at first use outside the abstract.
328 Additional citations are allowed at the author's discretion.
330 We recommend using A) and strongly recommend consistent use of one
331 style throughout.
333 3.6. Abbreviation Rules
335 Abbreviations should be expanded in document titles and upon first
336 use in the document. The full expansion of the text should be
337 followed by the abbreviation itself in parentheses. The exception is
338 an abbreviation that is so common that the readership of RFCs can be
339 expected to recognize it immediately; examples include (but are not
340 limited to) TCP, IP, SNMP, and HTTP. The online list of
341 abbreviations [ABBR] provides guidance. Some cases are marginal, and
342 the RFC Editor will make the final judgment, weighing obscurity
343 against complexity.
345 Note: The online list of abbreviations is not exhaustive or
346 definitive. It is a list of abbreviations appearing in RFCs and
347 sometimes reflects discussions with authors, Working Group Chairs,
348 and/or Area Directors (ADs). Note that some abbreviations have
349 multiple expansions. Additionally, this list includes some terms
350 that look like abbreviations but that are actually fixed names for
351 things and hence cannot and should not be expanded. These are noted
352 as "No Expansion".
354 3.7. Images and Figures
356 The goal of having images within an RFC is to convey information. A
357 good diagram or image expresses information quickly, clearly, and
358 with low chance of misunderstanding. Technically correct but
359 confusing images get in the way of understanding and implementation.
361 1. Images should be legible when displayed on a standard screen
362 (1920x1080) and printable on either A4 or US Letter paper. Any
363 text within the diagram should be readable at that resolution.
365 2. Authors should use black on white, not white on black. No color
366 or greyscale [RFC7990][RFC7996]
368 3. Keep your diagrams as simple as possible. If an object in the
369 diagram is not immediately relevant, leave it out. If you have
370 several ideas you want to convey, consider using more than one
371 diagram.
373 4. San-serif fonts are generally considered more readable for
374 digital material. [citation needed]
376 5. The style of diagrams within an RFC should be consistent both
377 within a single RFC and within a cluster of RFCs (fonts, shapes,
378 lines). For example, if you you use a dashed line to indicate a
379 certain type of packet flow, then continue to use that style of
380 line consistently.
382 6. Line styles, including thickness, color, and arrow types, are
383 easy methods to convey a particular meaning to the reader.
384 Consistently use the same line styles to convey a particular
385 meaning throughout all diagrams within an RFC in order to avoid
386 confusing the reader.
388 7. Flowcharts: avoid crossing the lines if possible.
390 8. Captions or alternative text are encouraged for all figures,
391 diagrams, and other artwork. [ALTTEXT] [RFC7991]
393 4. Structure of an RFC
395 A published RFC will largely contain the elements in the following
396 list. Some of these sections are required, as noted. Those sections
397 marked with "*" will be supplied by the RFC Editor during the
398 editorial process when necessary. The rules for each of these
399 elements are described in more detail below.
401 First-page header * [Required]
402 Title [Required]
403 Abstract [Required]
404 RFC Editor or Stream Note * [Upon request]
405 Status of This Memo * [Required]
406 Copyright Notice * [Required]
407 Table of Contents * [Required]
408 Body of the Memo [Required]
410 1. Introduction [Required]
411 2. Requirements Language (RFC 2119)
412 3. ...
413 MAIN BODY OF THE TEXT
414 6. ...
415 7. IANA Considerations [Required]
416 8. Internationalization Considerations
417 9. Security Considerations [Required]
418 10. References
419 10.1. Normative References
420 10.2. Informative References
421 Appendix A.
422 Appendix B.
424 Acknowledgements
425 Contributors
426 Index
427 Author's Address [Required]
429 Within the body of the memo, the order shown above is strongly
430 recommended. Exceptions may be questioned. Outside the body of the
431 memo, the order above is required. The section numbers above are for
432 illustrative purposes; they are not intended to correspond to
433 required numbering in an RFC.
435 The elements preceding the body of the memo should not be numbered.
436 Typically, the body of the memo will have numbered sections and the
437 appendices will be labeled with letters. Any sections that appear
438 after the appendices should not be numbered or labeled (e.g., see
439 "Contributors" above).
441 4.1. First-Page Header
443 Headers will follow the format described in "RFC Streams, Headers,
444 and Boilerplates" [RFC7841] and its successors. In addition, the
445 following conventions will apply.
447 4.1.1. Author/Editor
449 The final determination of who should be listed as an author or
450 editor on an RFC is made by the stream, as is whether or not
451 including author affiliation is required.
453 The author's name (initial followed by family name) appears on the
454 first line of the heading. Some variation, such as additional
455 initials or capitalization of family name, is acceptable. Once the
456 author has selected how their name should appear, they should use
457 that display consistently in all of their documents.
459 The total number of authors or editors on the first page is generally
460 limited to five individuals and their affiliations. If there is a
461 request for more than five authors, the stream-approving body needs
462 to consider if one or two editors should have primary responsibility
463 for this document, with the other individuals listed in the
464 Contributors or Acknowledgements section. There must be a direct
465 correlation of authors and editors in the document header and the
466 Authors' Addresses section. These are the individuals that must sign
467 off on the document during the AUTH48 process and respond to
468 inquiries, such as errata.
470 4.1.2. Organization
472 The author's organization is indicated on the line following the
473 author's name.
475 For multiple authors, each author name appears on its own line,
476 followed by that author's organization. When more than one author is
477 affiliated with the same organization, the organization can be
478 "factored out," appearing only once following the corresponding
479 Author lines. However, such factoring is inappropriate when it would
480 force an unacceptable reordering of author names.
482 If an author cannot or will not provide an affiliation for any
483 reason, "Independent", "Individual Contributor", "Retired", or some
484 other term that appropriately describes the author's affiliation may
485 be used. Alternatively, a blank line may be included in the document
486 header when no affiliation is provided.
488 4.1.3. ISSN: 2070-1721
490 The RFC Series has been assigned an International Standard Serial
491 Number of 2070-1721 [ISO3297]. It will be included by the RFC
492 Editor.
494 4.1.4. Updates and Obsoletes
496 When an RFC obsoletes or updates a previously published RFC or RFCs,
497 this information is included in the document header. For example:
499 "Updates: nnnn" or "Updates: nnnn, ..., nnnn"
501 "Obsoletes: nnnn" or "Obsoletes: nnnn, ..., nnnn"
503 If the document updates or obsoletes more than one document, numbers
504 will be listed in ascending order.
506 4.2. Document Title
508 The title must be centered below the rest of the heading, preceded by
509 two blank lines and followed by one blank line.
511 Choosing a good title for an RFC can be a challenge. A good title
512 should fairly represent the scope and purpose of the document without
513 being either too general or too specific and lengthy.
515 Abbreviations in a title must generally be expanded when first
516 encountered (see Section 3.6 for additional guidance on
517 abbreviations).
519 It is often helpful to follow the expansion with the parenthesized
520 abbreviation, as in the following example:
522 Encoding Rules for the
523 Common Routing Encapsulation Extension Protocol (CREEP)
525 The RFC Editor recommends that documents describing a particular
526 company's private protocol should bear a title of the form "Foo's ...
527 Protocol" (where Foo is a company name), to clearly differentiate it
528 from a protocol of more general applicability.
530 4.3. Abstract Section
532 Every RFC must have an Abstract that provides a concise and
533 comprehensive overview of the purpose and contents of the entire
534 document, to give a technically knowledgeable reader a general
535 overview of the function of the document and some context with
536 regards to its relationship (in particular, whether it updates or
537 obsoletes) any other RFCs. In addition to its function in the RFC
538 itself, the Abstract section text will appear in publication
539 announcements and in the online index of RFCs.
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 overly long, incomplete, and redundant.
550 An Abstract is not a substitute for an Introduction; the RFC should
551 be self-contained as if there were no Abstract. Similarly, the
552 Abstract should be complete in itself. Given that the Abstract will
553 appear independently in announcements and indices, mentions of other
554 RFCs within the Abstract should include both an RFC number and either
555 the full or short title. Any documents that are Updated or Obsoleted
556 by the RFC must be mentioned in the Abstract if those documents offer
557 important provisions of, or reasons for, the RFC. These may be
558 presented in a list format if that improves readability.
560 4.4. RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section
562 A stream-approving body may approve the inclusion of an editorial
563 note to explain anything unusual about the process that led to the
564 document's publication or to note a correction. In this case, a
565 stream note section will contain such a note.
567 Additionally, an RFC Editor Note section may contain a note inserted
568 by the RFC Editor to highlight special circumstances surrounding an
569 RFC.
571 4.5. Status of This Memo Section
573 The RFC Editor will supply an appropriate "Status of This Memo" as
574 defined in RFC [RFC7841] and "Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream"
575 [IAB-FORM].
577 4.6. Copyright, Licenses, and IPR Boilerplate Section
579 The full copyright and license notices are available on the IETF
580 Trust Legal Provisions documents website [IETF-TRUST].
582 4.7. Table of Contents Section
584 A Table of Contents (TOC) is required in all RFCs. It must be
585 positioned after the Copyright Notice and before the Introduction.
587 4.8. Body of the Memo
589 Following the TOC is the body of the memo.
591 Each RFC must include an Introduction section that (among other
592 things) explains the motivation for the RFC and (if appropriate)
593 describes the applicability of the document, e.g., whether it
594 specifies a protocol, provides a discussion of some problem, is
595 simply of interest to the Internet community, or provides a status
596 report on some activity. The body of the memo and the Abstract must
597 be self-contained and separable. This may result in some duplication
598 of text between the Abstract and the Introduction; this is
599 acceptable.
601 4.8.1. Introduction Section
603 The Introduction section should always be the first section following
604 the TOC (except in the case of MIB module documents). While
605 "Introduction" is recommended, authors may choose alternate titles
606 such as "Overview" or "Background". These alternates are acceptable.
608 For MIB module documents, common practice has been for "The Internet-
609 Standard Management Framework" [MIB-BOILER] text to appear as
610 Section 1.
612 4.8.2. Requirements Language Section
614 Some documents use certain capitalized words ("MUST", "SHOULD", etc.)
615 to specify precise requirement levels for technical features. RFC
616 2119 [BCP14] defines a default interpretation of these capitalized
617 words in IETF documents. If this interpretation is used, RFC 2119
618 must be cited (as specified in RFC 2119) and included as a normative
619 reference. Otherwise, the correct interpretation must be specified
620 in the document.
622 This section must appear as part of the body of the memo (as defined
623 by this document). It must appear as part of, or subsequent to, the
624 Introduction section.
626 These words are considered part of the technical content of the
627 document and are intended to provide guidance to implementers about
628 specific technical features, generally governed by considerations of
629 interoperability. RFC 2119 says:
631 Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
632 and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
633 actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
634 potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
635 example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
636 on implementers where the method is not required for
637 interoperability.
639 4.8.3. IANA Considerations Section
641 For guidance on how to register IANA-related values or create new
642 registries to be managed by IANA, see "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
643 Considerations Section in RFCs" [BCP26].
645 The RFC Editor will update text accordingly after the IANA
646 assignments have been made. It is helpful for authors to clearly
647 identify where text should be updated to reflect the newly assigned
648 values. For example, the use of "TBD1", "TBD2", etc., is recommended
649 in the IANA Considerations section and in the body of the memo.
651 If the authors have provided values to be assigned by IANA, the RFC
652 Editor will verify that the values inserted by the authors match
653 those that have actually been registered on the IANA site. When
654 writing a given value, consistent use of decimal or hexadecimal is
655 recommended.
657 If any of the IANA-related information is not clear, the RFC Editor
658 will work with IANA to send queries to the authors to ensure that
659 assignments and values are properly inserted.
661 4.8.4. Internationalization Considerations Section
663 All RFCs that deal with internationalization issues should have a
664 section describing those issues; see "IETF Policy on Character Sets
665 and Languages" [BCP18], Section 6, for more information.
667 4.8.5. Security Considerations Section
669 All RFCs must contain a section that discusses the security
670 considerations relevant to the specification; see "Guidelines for
671 Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations" [BCP72] for more
672 information.
674 Note that additional boilerplate material for RFCs containing MIB and
675 YANG modules also exists. See "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB
676 Modules" [MIB-SEC] and "yang module security considerations"
677 [YANG-SEC] for details.
679 4.8.6. References Section
681 The reference list is solely for recording reference entries.
682 Introductory text or annotations beyond necessary translations
683 [RFC7997] are not allowed.
685 The RFC style allows the use of any of a variety of reference styles,
686 as long as they are used consistently within a document. However,
687 where necessary, some reference styles have been described for use
688 within the Series. See the following subsections as well as the
689 References section of this document.
691 Reference lists must indicate whether each reference is normative or
692 informative, where normative references are essential to implementing
693 or understanding the content of the RFC and informative references
694 provide additional information. More information about normative and
695 informative references may be found in the IESG's statement
696 "Normative and Informative References" [REFS]. When both normative
697 and informative references exist, the references section should be
698 split into two subsections:
700 Templates are available on the RFC Editor website for the XML format
701 of certain references [REFEXAMPLE].
703 s. References
705 s.1. Normative References
707 xxx
708 ...
709 xxx
711 s.2. Informative References
713 xxx
714 ...
715 xxx
717 References will generally appear in alphanumeric order by citation
718 tag. Where there are only normative or informative references, no
719 subsection is required; the top-level section should say "Normative
720 References" or "Informative References".
722 Normative references to Internet-Drafts will cause publication of the
723 RFC to be suspended until the referenced draft is also ready for
724 publication; the RFC Editor will then update the entry to refer to
725 the RFC and publish both documents simultaneously.
727 4.8.6.1. Referencing RFCs
729 The following format is required for referencing RFCs. The Stream
730 abbreviation should be used; when no stream is available, as with
731 legacy RFCs, this may be left blank.
733 Note the ordering for multiple authors: the format of the name of the
734 last author listed is different than that of all previous authors in
735 the list.
737 For one author or editor:
739 [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC
740 Title", Stream, Sub-series number (if applicable), RFC number, RFC
741 DOI, Date of publication,
742 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc#).
744 Example:
746 [RFC3080] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core,"
747 IETF, RFC 3080, DOI 10.17487/RFC3080, March 2001, (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3080).
750 [RFC8157] Leymann, N., Heidemann, C., Zhang, M., Sarikaya, B., and M.
751 Cullen, "Huawei's GRE Tunnel Bonding Protocol", independent, RFC
752 8157, DOI 10.17487/RFC8157, May 2017, (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8157).
755 For two authors or editors:
757 [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and First
758 initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-
759 series number (if applicable), RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of
760 publication, (https://www.rfc-
761 editor.org/info/rfc#).
763 Example:
765 [RFC6323] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "Sender RTT Estimate Option
766 for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", IETF, RFC 6323,
767 DOI 10.17487/RFC6323, July 2011, (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6323).
770 For three or more authors or editors:
772 [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), Last name,
773 First initial., Ed. (if applicable), and First initial. Last name,
774 Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-series number (if
775 applicable), RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of publication,
776 (https://www.rfc-
777 editor.org/info/rfc#).
779 Example:
781 [RFC6429] Bashyam, M., Jethanandani, M., and A. Ramaiah, "TCP Sender
782 Clarification for Persist Condition", IETF, RFC 6429, DOI 10.17487/
783 RFC6429, December 2011, >https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6429 <
784 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6429).
786 4.8.6.2. Referencing RFC(s) in a Subseries (STDs, BCPs, and FYIs
788 Internet Standards (STDs) and Best Current Practices (BCPs) may
789 consist of a single RFC or multiple RFCs. Authors should carefully
790 consider whether they want to point the reader to the specific RFC or
791 the sub series group. In the former case, references should appear
792 as described in Section 4.8.6.2. In the latter case, the sub series
793 number should take precedence as, for example, the citation tag, even
794 in cases where the sub series currently contains only one RFC.
796 When an STD or BCP that contains multiple RFCs is referenced as a sub
797 series group, the reference entry should include ALL of the RFCs
798 comprising that sub-series in a reference grouping under a single
799 citation tag [is it helpful to point them to 7991 or the like on how
800 to do this here?]. The authors should refer to the specific RFC
801 numbers as part of the text in the body of the document and cite the
802 sub series number (for example, "see RFC 2119 of [BCP14]").
803 Inclusion of the URI to the STD or BCP info page (see Section 3.2.3
804 of [RFC5741]) is recommended. The text should appear as follows:
806 See RFC 1034 [STD13].
808 For an STD or BCP that contains one RFC:
810 [STDXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title",
811 Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of publication,
812 (https://www.rfc-
813 editor.org/info/std#).
815 Example:
817 [STD72] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
818 IETF, STD 72, RFC 6409, DOI 10.17487/RFC6409, November 2011,
819 (https://www.rfc-
820 editor.org/info/std72).
822 For an STD or BCP that contains two or more RFCs:
824 [STDXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title",
825 Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of publication.
827 Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
828 and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable),
829 "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, RFC DOI,
830 Date of publication.
832
834 Example:
836 [STD13] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
837 IETF, STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
839 Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
840 specification", IETF, STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
841 November 1987.
843
845 Note - some RFCs contain an FYI sub-series number [FYI90] however,
846 the FYI series was ended by RFC 6360. RFCs that were published with
847 an FYI sub-series number and still maintain the FYI number must
848 include the sub-series number in the reference and may otherwise be
849 treated in the same manner as STDs and BCPs.
851 Grouping references to RFCs or other materials that are not part of a
852 sub-series is discouraged.
854 4.8.6.3. 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 "Internet Draft". 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, Internet-Draft, draft-string-NN, Day Month Year.
868 Example:
870 [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", Work in
871 Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-flanagan-style-04, 27 September 2019.
873 4.8.6.4. 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 4.8.6.5. Referencing IANA Registries
886 IANA registries may appear in normative or informative reference
887 sections.
889 [IANA-SYMBOLIC-TAG]
891 IANA, "Registry Name", .
893 4.8.6.6. Referencing Other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs)
895 The following format is suggested when referencing a document or
896 standard from another SDO in which authors are listed:
898 [SYMBOLIC-TAG]
900 Last name, First initial. and First initial. Last name,
902 "Document Title", Document reference number, Date of
904 publication, .
906 [W3C.REC-xml11]
908 Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E.,
910 Yergeau, F., and J. Cowan, "Extensible Markup Language
912 (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)", W3C Recommendation
914 REC-xml11-20060816, August 2006,
916 .
918 The order of authors in the list is the same as the order shown on
919 the actual document and that the common, abbreviated form of the SDO
920 is used.
922 Alternatively, when no list of authors is available, the following
923 format is recommended:
925 [SYMBOLIC-TAG] Organization, "Document Title", Document
926 reference number, Date of publication,
927 .
929 Example (undated; see note below):
931 [IEEE.802.15.4]
932 IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks",
933 IEEE 802.15.4,
934 .
936 Example (dated; see note below):
938 [IEEE802.1Q] IEEE, "Local and Metropolitan Area
939 Networks -- Media Access Control (MAC)
940 Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area
941 Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011, August 2011,
942
945 Per the IEEE coordination team, listing dates for IEEE standards is
946 not recommended unless there is a need to cite a particular section,
947 in which case the dated reference is appropriate. An RFC with a
948 dated IEEE reference suggests that the RFC only applies to that
949 specific IEEE specification.
951 4.8.6.7. Referencing Webpages
953 References to webpages acceptable in either the normative or
954 informative sections, as long as the URL provided is the most stable
955 (i.e., unlikely to change and expected to be continuously available)
956 and direct reference possible. The URL will be verified as valid
957 during the RFC editorial process.
959 If a dated URI (one that includes a timestamp for the page) is
960 available for a referenced web page, its use is required.
962 Note that the URL may not be the sole information provided for a
963 reference entry.
965 The use of HTTPS rather than HTTP is strongly encouraged.
967 Example:
969 [SYMBOLIC-TAG] Author (if available), "Page Title (if available)",
970 .
972 [ISOC-MANRS] Internet Society, "Mutually Agreed
973 Norms for Routing Security",
974
976 4.8.6.8. Referencing Email on Mailing Lists
978 When referencing emails to mailing lists, the template provided here
979 should be used:
981 [reftag] Sender, A., "Subject: Subject line", message to the
983 listname mailing list, DD Month YYYY, .
985 4.8.6.9. Referencing Code Repositories
987 References to online code repositories such as GitHub or SourceForge
988 should be used as informative references only. The reference entry
989 should include the repository title, commit hash or similar release
990 marker if available, date of last commit, and URL.
992 Examples:
994 [pysaml] "Python implementation of SAML2", commit 7135d53,
995 6 March 2018, .
997 [linuxlite] "Linux Lite", 9 March 2018,
998 .
1000 4.9. Appendices Section
1002 The RFC Editor recommends placing references before the Appendices.
1003 Appendices should be labeled as "Appendix A. Title", "A.1. Title",
1004 "Appendix B. Title", etc.
1006 4.10. Acknowledgements Section
1008 This optional section may be used instead of, or in addition to, a
1009 Contributors section. It is often used by authors to publicly thank
1010 those who have provided feedback regarding a document and to note any
1011 documents from which text was borrowed.
1013 4.11. Contributors Section
1015 This optional section acknowledges those who have made significant
1016 contributions to the document.
1018 In a similar fashion to the Author's Address section, the RFC Editor
1019 does not make the determination as to who should be listed as a
1020 contributor to an RFC. The determination of who should be listed as
1021 a contributor is made by the stream.
1023 The Contributors section may include brief statements about the
1024 nature of particular contributions (e.g., "Sam contributed
1025 Section 3"), and it may also include affiliations of listed
1026 contributors. At the discretion of the author(s), contact addresses
1027 may also be included in the Contributors section, for those
1028 contributors whose knowledge makes them useful future contacts for
1029 information about the RFC. The format of any contact information
1030 should be similar to the format of information in the Author's
1031 Address section.
1033 4.12. Index
1035 If included, an index appears at the end of the document, immediately
1036 before Author's Address section.
1038 4.13. Author's Address or Authors' Addresses Section
1040 This required section gives contact information for the author(s)
1041 listed in the first-page header.
1043 Contact information must include a long-lived email address and
1044 optionally may include a postal address and/or telephone number. If
1045 the postal address is included, it should include the country name,
1046 using the English short name listed by the ISO 3166 Maintenance
1047 Agency [ISO_OBP]. The purpose of this section is to (1)
1048 unambiguously define author identity (e.g., the John Smith who works
1049 for FooBar Systems) and (2) provide contact information for future
1050 readers who have questions or comments.
1052 The practice of munged email addresses (i.e., altering an email
1053 address to make it less readable to bots and web crawlers to avoid
1054 spam) is not appropriate in an archival document series. Author
1055 contact information is provided so that readers can easily contact
1056 the author with questions and/or comments. Address munging is not
1057 allowed in RFCs.
1059 5. Security Considerations
1061 This document has no security considerations.
1063 6. IANA Considerations
1065 This document has no IANA considerations.
1067 7. Change Log
1069 This section to be removed before publication.
1071 -00 to -01: Citation tag requirements more tightly specified;
1072 index moved; new errata URI added; capitalization of working/
1073 research group specified
1075 -01 to -02: update Abstract guidance
1077 -02 to -03: updated citation section; changed list styles; added
1078 angle brackets to reference examples; changed I-D reference
1079 format; clarified sub-series reference format; added guidance on
1080 referencing code repositories
1082 -03 to -04: updated Reference Section guidance; added information
1083 on alt text
1085 -04 to -05: change author, add acknowledgement
1087 8. References
1089 8.1. Normative References
1091 [STYLE-WEB]
1092 RFC Editor, "Web Portion of the Style Guide",
1093 .
1095 8.2. Informative References
1097 [ABBR] RFC Editor, "RFC Editor Abbreviations List",
1098 .
1101 [ALTTEXT] W3C, "Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.1: Info and
1102 Relationships",
1103 .
1106 [BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
1107 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
1108 .
1110 [BCP18] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
1111 Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998,
1112 .
1114 [BCP26] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an
1115 ANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
1116 2008, .
1118 [BCP32] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
1119 Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999,
1120 .
1122 [BCP72] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
1123 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
1124 2003, .
1126 [CLUSTER] RFC Editor, "Clusters in the RFC Editor Queue",
1127 .
1129 [CMOS] University of Chicago Press, 2010, "Chicago Manual of
1130 Style, 16th ed.", 2010.
1132 [FYI90] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction to
1133 the FYI Notes", FYI 90, RFC 1150, March 1990,
1134 . Housley, R.,
1135 "Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series", RFC 6360, August 2011.
1137 [IAB-FORM] IAB, "Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream",
1138 .
1141 [ID-GUIDE] IETF, "Guidelines to Authors of Internet Drafts",
1142 .
1144 [IETF-TRUST]
1145 IETF Trust, "Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)",
1146 .
1148 [ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and
1149 documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, "Identification and
1150 description, Information and documentation - International
1151 standard serial number (ISSN)", September 2007.
1153 [ISO_OBP] ISO, "Online Browsing Platform (OBP)",
1154 .
1156 [MIB-BOILER]
1157 IETF OPS Area, "Boilerplate for IETF MIB Documents",
1158 .
1160 [MIB-SEC] IETF OPS Area, "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules",
1161 .
1164 [REFEXAMPLE]
1165 RFC Editor, "Reference Examples",
1166 .
1168 [REFS] IESG, "IESG Statement: Normative and Informative",
1169 .
1172 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
1173 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
1174 July 2007, .
1176 [RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
1177 Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
1178 2012, .
1180 [RFC7841] Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed.,
1181 "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841,
1182 DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016,
1183 .
1185 [RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990,
1186 DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016,
1187 .
1189 [RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
1190 RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
1191 .
1193 [RFC7996] Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC",
1194 RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016,
1195 .
1197 [RFC7997] Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in
1198 RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016,
1199 .
1201 [STD66] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
1202 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
1203 RFC 3986, January 2005,
1204 .
1206 [TERMS] RFC Editor, "Terms List",
1207 .
1209 [YANG-SEC] IETF Ops Area, "yang module security considerations",
1210 .
1213 Appendix A. Related Procedures
1215 The following procedures are related to the application and updating
1216 of the RFC Style Guide.
1218 A.1. Dispute Resolution
1220 There are competing rationales for some of the rules described in
1221 this Guide, and the RFC Editor has selected the ones that work best
1222 for the Series. However, at times, an author may have a disagreement
1223 with the RFC Production Center (RPC) over the application of Style
1224 Guide conventions. In such cases, the authors should discuss their
1225 concerns with the RPC. If no agreement can be reached between the
1226 RPC and the authors, the RFC Series Editor will, with input from the
1227 appropriate stream-approving body, make a final determination. If
1228 further resolution is required, the dispute resolution process as
1229 described in the RFC Editor Model [RFC6635] will be followed.
1231 A.2. Returning an I-D to the Document Stream
1233 For a given document, if the RFC Editor determines that it cannot be
1234 edited without serious risk of altering the meaning of the technical
1235 content or if the RFC Editor does not have the resources to provide
1236 the level of editing it needs, it may be sent back to the stream-
1237 approving body with a request to improve the clarity, consistency,
1238 and/or readability of the document. This is not to be considered a
1239 dispute with the author.
1241 A.3. Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages
1243 The RFC Series is continually evolving as a document series. This
1244 document focuses on the fundamental and stable requirements that must
1245 be met by an RFC. From time to time, the RFC Editor may offer less
1246 formal recommendations that authors may apply at their discretion;
1247 these recommendations may be found on the RFC Editor website
1248 "Guidelines for RFC Style" [STYLE-WEB].
1250 When a new recommendation is made regarding the overall structure and
1251 formatting of RFCs, it will be published on that page and accepted
1252 for a period of time before the RFC Editor determines whether it
1253 should become part of the fundamental requirements in the RFC Style
1254 Guide or remain as a less formal recommendation. That period of time
1255 will vary, in part depending on the frequency with which authors
1256 encounter and apply the guidance.
1258 Appendix B. Acknowledgements
1260 Much of this document was written by Heather Flanagan during her term
1261 as RFC Editor.
1263 Authors' Addresses
1265 John Levine (editor)
1266 Temporary RFC Series Project Manager
1268 Email: standards@standcore.com
1269 URI: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7553-5024
1271 Sandy Ginoza
1272 RFC Editor
1274 Email: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
1275 URI: https://www.rfc-editor.org