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