idnits 2.17.1 draft-flanagan-7322bis-07.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 (7 April 2021) is 1107 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC6146' is mentioned on line 319, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6147' is mentioned on line 320, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6144' is mentioned on line 322, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6959' is mentioned on line 325, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Required' is mentioned on line 428, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 779, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC3080' is mentioned on line 753, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC8157' is mentioned on line 757, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6323' is mentioned on line 772, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6429' is mentioned on line 788, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 6429 (Obsoleted by RFC 9293) == Missing Reference: 'RFC5741' is mentioned on line 811, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 5741 (Obsoleted by RFC 7841) == Missing Reference: 'STD13' is mentioned on line 843, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'STDXXX' is mentioned on line 831, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'STD72' is mentioned on line 824, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'SYMBOLIC-TAG' is mentioned on line 979, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC-STYLE' is mentioned on line 880, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'ErrNumber' is mentioned on line 889, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Err1912' is mentioned on line 892, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'IANA-SYMBOLIC-TAG' is mentioned on line 900, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'IEEE.802.15.4' is mentioned on line 941, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'IEEE802.1Q' is mentioned on line 948, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'ISOC-MANRS' is mentioned on line 982, 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: 9 October 2021 7 April 2021 8 RFC Style Guide 9 draft-flanagan-7322bis-07 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 9 October 2021. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2021 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. Digital Object Identifier 10.17487 . . . . . . . . . 12 71 4.1.5. Updates and Obsoletes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 4.2. Document Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 4.3. Abstract Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 4.4. RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 4.5. Status of This Memo Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 4.6. Copyright, Licenses, and IPR Boilerplate Section . . . . 14 77 4.7. Table of Contents Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 78 4.8. Body of the Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 79 4.8.1. Introduction Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80 4.8.2. Requirements Language Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 4.8.3. IANA Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 82 4.8.4. Internationalization Considerations Section . . . . . 15 83 4.8.5. Security Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . 15 84 4.8.6. References Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 85 4.9. Appendices Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 86 4.10. Acknowledgements Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 87 4.11. Contributors Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 88 4.12. Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 89 4.13. Author's Address or Authors' Addresses Section . . . . . 23 90 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 91 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 92 7. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 93 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 94 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 95 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 96 Appendix A. Related Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 97 A.1. Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 98 A.2. Returning an I-D to the Document Stream . . . . . . . . . 27 99 A.3. Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages . . . . . 28 100 Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 101 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 103 1. Introduction 105 The ultimate goal of the RFC publication process is to produce 106 documents that are readable, clear, and consistent. The basic 107 formatting conventions for RFCs were established in the 1970s by the 108 original RFC Editor, Jon Postel. This document describes the 109 fundamental and unique style conventions and editorial policies 110 currently in use for the RFC Series [RFC4844] and is intended as a 111 stable, infrequently updated reference for authors, editors, and 112 reviewers. 114 The RFC Editor also maintains a web portion of the Style Guide (see 115 Appendix A.3) that describes issues as they are raised and indicates 116 how the RFC Editor intends to address them. As new style issues 117 arise, the RFC Editor will first address them on the web portion of 118 the Style Guide [STYLE-WEB]. These topics may become part of the RFC 119 Style Guide when it is revised. 121 The world of publishing has generally accepted rules for grammar, 122 punctuation, capitalization, sentence length and complexity, etc. 123 The RFC Editor generally follows these accepted rules as defined by 124 the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) [CMOS], with a few important 125 exceptions to avoid ambiguity in complex technical prose and to 126 handle mixtures of text and computer languages, or to preserve 127 historical formatting rules. This document presents these exceptions 128 as applied or recommended by the RFC Editor. 130 All RFCs begin as Internet-Drafts (also referred to as I-Ds), and a 131 well-written and properly constructed Internet-Draft [ID-GUIDE] 132 provides a strong basis for a good RFC. The RFC Editor accepts 133 Internet-Drafts from specified streams for publication [RFC4844] and 134 applies the rules and guidelines for the RFC Series during the 135 editorial process. 137 2. RFC Editor's Philosophy 139 Authors may find it helpful to understand the RFC Editor's goals 140 during the publication process, namely to: 142 * Prepare the document according to RFC style and format. 144 * Make the document as clear, consistent, and readable as possible. 146 * Correct larger content/clarity issues; flag any unclear passages 147 for author review. 149 * Fix inconsistencies (e.g., terms that appear in various forms, 150 inconsistent capitalization, discrepancies between a figure and 151 the text that describes it). 153 We strive for consistency within: 155 a. the document, 157 b. a cluster of documents [CLUSTER], and 159 c. the series of RFCs on the subject matter. 161 The editorial process of the RFC Editor is not an additional 162 technical review of the document. Where the RFC Editor may suggest 163 changes in wording for clarity and readability, it is up to the 164 author, working group, or stream-approving body to determine whether 165 the changes have an impact on the technical meaning of the document 166 [RFC4844]. If the original wording is a more accurate representation 167 of the technical content being described in the document, it takes 168 precedence over editorial conventions. 170 The activity of editing sometimes creates a tension between author 171 and editor. The RFC Editor attempts to minimize this conflict for 172 RFC publication while continually striving to produce a uniformly 173 excellent document series. The RFC Editor refers to this fundamental 174 tension as "editorial balance," and maintaining this balance is a 175 continuing concern for the RFC Editor. There is a prime directive 176 that must rule over grammatical conventions: do not change the 177 intended meaning of the text. 179 If the RFC Editor cannot edit a document without serious risk of 180 altering the meaning, it may be returned to the stream-approving body 181 for review. See Appendix A.2 for more information. 183 3. RFC Style Conventions 185 This Style Guide does not use terminology as defined in RFC 2119 186 [BCP14]. In this document, lowercase use of "must" and "should" 187 indicates changes the RFC Editor will make automatically to conform 188 with this Style Guide versus those that may be questioned if not 189 applied. The lowercase "must" indicates those changes that will be 190 applied automatically and are not at the discretion of the authors. 191 The lowercase "should" indicates the RFC Editor's recommended use, 192 but conformance with the recommendations is not required; the RFC 193 Editor may question whether the guidance may be applied. 195 3.1. Language 197 The RFC publication language is English. Spelling may be either 198 American or British, as long as an individual document is internally 199 consistent. Where both American and British English spelling are 200 used within a document or cluster of documents, the text will be 201 modified to be consistent with American English spelling. 203 3.2. Punctuation 205 1. A comma is used before the last item of a series, e.g., 207 "TCP service is reliable, ordered, and full duplex" 209 2. When quoting literal text, punctuation is placed outside 210 quotation marks, e.g., 212 Search for the string "Error Found". 214 When quoting general text, such as general text from another RFC, 215 punctuation may be included within the quotation marks, e.g., 217 RFC 4844 indicates that "RFCs are available free of charge to 218 anyone via the Internet." 220 Quotation marks are not necessary when text is formatted as a 221 block quotation. 223 3.2.1. RFCs as Compounds 225 Whenever possible: 227 * Hyphenated compounds formed with RFC numbers should be avoided; 228 this can be accomplished by: rewording the sentence (e.g., change 229 "[RFC5011]-style rollover" to "rollover as described in RFC 230 5011"). 232 * adding a note in either the Terminology or Conventions section 233 mentioning the RFC so that other occurrences throughout the text 234 will be understood by the reader to be in the style of said RFC 235 (e.g., This document uses the term "rollover" as defined in RFC 236 5011.). 238 If use of an RFC number in attributive position is unavoidable, the 239 preferred form should appear as in the example "RFC 5011-style 240 rollover". That is: 242 * no hyphen between "RFC" and the number (don't use RFC-5011-style 243 rollover) 245 * avoid hyphenating citations with text (don't use [RFC5011]-style 246 rollover) 248 3.3. DNS Names and URIs 250 DNS names, whether or not in URIs, that are used as generic examples 251 in RFCs should use the particular examples defined in "Reserved Top 252 Level DNS Names" [BCP32], to avoid accidental conflicts. 254 Angle brackets are strongly recommended around URIs [STD66], e.g., 256 258 The use of HTTPS rather than HTTP is strongly encouraged. 260 3.4. Capitalization 262 1. Capitalization must be consistent within the document and ideally 263 should be consistent with related RFCs. Refer to the online 264 table of decisions on consistent usage of terms in RFCs [TERMS]. 266 2. Per CMOS guidelines, the major words in RFC titles and section 267 titles should be capitalized (this is sometimes called "title 268 case"). Typically, all words in a title will be capitalized, 269 except for internal articles, prepositions, and conjunctions. 271 3. Section titles that are in sentence form will follow typical 272 sentence capitalization. 274 4. Titles of figures may be in sentence form or use title case. 276 5. Some terms related to the various roles or parts of the streams 277 authoring RFCs should be used consistently. For example, when 278 the term 'working group' or 'research group' is used as part of a 279 specific group name, it will be capitalized (e.g., kitten Working 280 Group, Crypto Forum Research Group). When used to generally 281 refer to groups, it will be downcased. 283 3.5. Citations 285 The most important function of a citation is to point to a reference 286 so that a reader may follow up on additional material that is 287 important in some way to understanding or implementing the content in 288 an RFC. This section offers guidance on the requirements and 289 recommendations for citation format within an RFC. 291 1. References and citations must match. That is, there must be a 292 reference for each citation used, and vice versa. 294 2. Citations must be enclosed in square brackets (e.g., "[CITE1]"). 296 3. Citations are restricted to ASCII-only characters, as described 297 in "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs" [RFC7997]. 299 4. Citations must begin with a number or a letter, and may contain 300 digits, letters, colons, hyphens, underscores, or dots. 302 * Example: "[IEEE.802.15.4]" rather than "[.802.15.4]" 304 * Example: "[RFC2119]" rather than "[RFC 2119]" 306 5. Citations may not include spaces, commas, quotation marks, or 307 other punctuation (!, ?, etc.), and should be in-line with the 308 normal line of type. 310 * Example: "See RFC 2119 [BCP14] for more information." 312 6. Cross-references within the body of the memo and to other RFCs 313 must use section numbers rather than page numbers, as pagination 314 may change per format and device. 316 7. A citation may A) follow the subject to which the citation 317 applies or B) be read as part of the text. For example: 319 a. As part of the transition to IPv6, NAT64 [RFC6146] and DNS64 320 [RFC6147] technologies will be utilized by some access 321 networks to provide IPv4 connectivity for IPv6-only nodes 322 [RFC6144]. 324 b. Note that SAVI raises a number of important privacy 325 considerations that are discussed more fully in [RFC6959]. 327 8. For a document referenced multiple times in running text, the 328 citation anchor must be at first use outside the abstract. 329 Additional citations are allowed at the author's discretion. 331 We recommend using A) and strongly recommend consistent use of one 332 style throughout. 334 3.6. Abbreviation Rules 336 Abbreviations should be expanded in document titles and upon first 337 use in the document. The full expansion of the text should be 338 followed by the abbreviation itself in parentheses. The exception is 339 an abbreviation that is so common that the readership of RFCs can be 340 expected to recognize it immediately; examples include (but are not 341 limited to) TCP, IP, SNMP, and HTTP. The online list of 342 abbreviations [ABBR] provides guidance. Some cases are marginal, and 343 the RFC Editor will make the final judgment, weighing obscurity 344 against complexity. 346 Note: The online list of abbreviations is not exhaustive or 347 definitive. It is a list of abbreviations appearing in RFCs and 348 sometimes reflects discussions with authors, Working Group Chairs, 349 and/or Area Directors (ADs). Note that some abbreviations have 350 multiple expansions. Additionally, this list includes some terms 351 that look like abbreviations but that are actually fixed names for 352 things and hence cannot and should not be expanded. These are noted 353 as "No Expansion". 355 3.7. Images and Figures 357 The goal of having images within an RFC is to convey information. A 358 good diagram or image expresses information quickly, clearly, and 359 with low chance of misunderstanding. Technically correct but 360 confusing images get in the way of understanding and implementation. 362 1. Images should be legible when displayed on a standard screen 363 (1920x1080) and printable on either A4 or US Letter paper. Any 364 text within the diagram should be readable at that resolution. 366 2. Authors should use black on white, not white on black. No color 367 or greyscale [RFC7990][RFC7996] 369 3. Keep your diagrams as simple as possible. If an object in the 370 diagram is not immediately relevant, leave it out. If you have 371 several ideas you want to convey, consider using more than one 372 diagram. 374 4. San-serif fonts are generally considered more readable for 375 digital material. [citation needed] 377 5. The style of diagrams within an RFC should be consistent both 378 within a single RFC and within a cluster of RFCs (fonts, shapes, 379 lines). For example, if you you use a dashed line to indicate a 380 certain type of packet flow, then continue to use that style of 381 line consistently. 383 6. Line styles, including thickness, color, and arrow types, are 384 easy methods to convey a particular meaning to the reader. 385 Consistently use the same line styles to convey a particular 386 meaning throughout all diagrams within an RFC in order to avoid 387 confusing the reader. 389 7. Flowcharts: avoid crossing the lines if possible. 391 8. Captions or alternative text are encouraged for all figures, 392 diagrams, and other artwork. [ALTTEXT] [RFC7991] 394 4. Structure of an RFC 396 A published RFC will largely contain the elements in the following 397 list. Some of these sections are required, as noted. Those sections 398 marked with "*" will be supplied by the RFC Editor during the 399 editorial process when necessary. The rules for each of these 400 elements are described in more detail below. 402 First-page header * [Required] 403 Title [Required] 404 Abstract [Required] 405 RFC Editor or Stream Note * [Upon request] 406 Status of This Memo * [Required] 407 Copyright Notice * [Required] 408 Table of Contents * [Required] 409 Body of the Memo [Required] 411 1. Introduction [Required] 412 2. Requirements Language (RFC 2119) 413 3. ... 414 MAIN BODY OF THE TEXT 415 6. ... 416 7. IANA Considerations [Required] 417 8. Internationalization Considerations 418 9. Security Considerations [Required] 419 10. References 420 10.1. Normative References 421 10.2. Informative References 422 Appendix A. 423 Appendix B. 425 Acknowledgements 426 Contributors 427 Index 428 Author's Address [Required] 430 Within the body of the memo, the order shown above is strongly 431 recommended. Exceptions may be questioned. Outside the body of the 432 memo, the order above is required. The section numbers above are for 433 illustrative purposes; they are not intended to correspond to 434 required numbering in an RFC. 436 The elements preceding the body of the memo should not be numbered. 437 Typically, the body of the memo will have numbered sections and the 438 appendices will be labeled with letters. Any sections that appear 439 after the appendices should not be numbered or labeled (e.g., see 440 "Contributors" above). 442 4.1. First-Page Header 444 Headers will follow the format described in "RFC Streams, Headers, 445 and Boilerplates" [RFC7841] and its successors. In addition, the 446 following conventions will apply. 448 4.1.1. Author/Editor 450 The final determination of who should be listed as an author or 451 editor on an RFC is made by the stream, as is whether or not 452 including author affiliation is required. 454 The author's name (initial followed by family name) appears on the 455 first line of the heading. Some variation, such as additional 456 initials or capitalization of family name, is acceptable. Once the 457 author has selected how their name should appear, they should use 458 that display consistently in all of their documents. 460 The total number of authors or editors on the first page is generally 461 limited to five individuals and their affiliations. If there is a 462 request for more than five authors, the stream-approving body needs 463 to consider if one or two editors should have primary responsibility 464 for this document, with the other individuals listed in the 465 Contributors or Acknowledgements section. There must be a direct 466 correlation of authors and editors in the document header and the 467 Authors' Addresses section. These are the individuals that must sign 468 off on the document during the AUTH48 process and respond to 469 inquiries, such as errata. 471 4.1.2. Organization 473 The author's organization is indicated on the line following the 474 author's name. 476 For multiple authors, each author name appears on its own line, 477 followed by that author's organization. When more than one author is 478 affiliated with the same organization, the organization can be 479 "factored out," appearing only once following the corresponding 480 Author lines. However, such factoring is inappropriate when it would 481 force an unacceptable reordering of author names. 483 If an author cannot or will not provide an affiliation for any 484 reason, "Independent", "Individual Contributor", "Retired", or some 485 other term that appropriately describes the author's affiliation may 486 be used. Alternatively, a blank line may be included in the document 487 header when no affiliation is provided. 489 4.1.3. ISSN: 2070-1721 491 The RFC Series has been assigned an International Standard Serial 492 Number of 2070-1721 [ISO3297]. It will be included by the RFC 493 Editor. 495 4.1.4. Digital Object Identifier 10.17487 497 The RFC Series has been assigned a Digital Object Identifier prefix 498 of 10.17487 [RFC7669]. A DOI will be assigned and included by the 499 RFC Editor. 501 4.1.5. Updates and Obsoletes 503 When an RFC obsoletes or updates a previously published RFC or RFCs, 504 this information is included in the document header. For example: 506 "Updates: nnnn" or "Updates: nnnn, ..., nnnn" 508 "Obsoletes: nnnn" or "Obsoletes: nnnn, ..., nnnn" 510 If the document updates or obsoletes more than one document, numbers 511 will be listed in ascending order. 513 4.2. Document Title 515 The title must be centered below the rest of the heading, preceded by 516 two blank lines and followed by one blank line. 518 Choosing a good title for an RFC can be a challenge. A good title 519 should fairly represent the scope and purpose of the document without 520 being either too general or too specific and lengthy. 522 Abbreviations in a title must generally be expanded when first 523 encountered (see Section 3.6 for additional guidance on 524 abbreviations). 526 It is often helpful to follow the expansion with the parenthesized 527 abbreviation, as in the following example: 529 Encoding Rules for the 530 Common Routing Encapsulation Extension Protocol (CREEP) 532 The RFC Editor recommends that documents describing a particular 533 company's private protocol should bear a title of the form "Foo's ... 534 Protocol" (where Foo is a company name), to clearly differentiate it 535 from a protocol of more general applicability. 537 4.3. Abstract Section 539 Every RFC must have an Abstract that provides a concise and 540 comprehensive overview of the purpose and contents of the entire 541 document, to give a technically knowledgeable reader a general 542 overview of the function of the document and some context with 543 regards to its relationship (in particular, whether it updates or 544 obsoletes) any other RFCs. In addition to its function in the RFC 545 itself, the Abstract section text will appear in publication 546 announcements and in the online index of RFCs. 548 Composing a useful Abstract generally requires thought and care. 549 Usually, an Abstract should begin with a phrase like "This memo ..." 550 or "This document ..." A satisfactory Abstract can often be 551 constructed in part from material within the Introduction section, 552 but an effective Abstract may be shorter, less detailed, and perhaps 553 broader in scope than the Introduction. Simply copying and pasting 554 the first few paragraphs of the Introduction is allowed, but it may 555 result in an Abstract that is overly long, incomplete, and redundant. 557 An Abstract is not a substitute for an Introduction; the RFC should 558 be self-contained as if there were no Abstract. Similarly, the 559 Abstract should be complete in itself. Given that the Abstract will 560 appear independently in announcements and indices, mentions of other 561 RFCs within the Abstract should include both an RFC number and either 562 the full or short title. Any documents that are Updated or Obsoleted 563 by the RFC must be mentioned in the Abstract if those documents offer 564 important provisions of, or reasons for, the RFC. These may be 565 presented in a list format if that improves readability. 567 4.4. RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section 569 A stream-approving body may approve the inclusion of an editorial 570 note to explain anything unusual about the process that led to the 571 document's publication or to note a correction. In this case, a 572 stream note section will contain such a note. 574 Additionally, an RFC Editor Note section may contain a note inserted 575 by the RFC Editor to highlight special circumstances surrounding an 576 RFC. 578 4.5. Status of This Memo Section 580 The RFC Editor will supply an appropriate "Status of This Memo" as 581 defined in RFC [RFC7841] and "Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream" 582 [IAB-FORM]. 584 4.6. Copyright, Licenses, and IPR Boilerplate Section 586 The full copyright and license notices are available on the IETF 587 Trust Legal Provisions documents website [IETF-TRUST]. 589 4.7. Table of Contents Section 591 A Table of Contents (TOC) is required in all RFCs. It must be 592 positioned after the Copyright Notice and before the Introduction. 594 4.8. Body of the Memo 596 Following the TOC is the body of the memo. 598 Each RFC must include an Introduction section that (among other 599 things) explains the motivation for the RFC and (if appropriate) 600 describes the applicability of the document, e.g., whether it 601 specifies a protocol, provides a discussion of some problem, is 602 simply of interest to the Internet community, or provides a status 603 report on some activity. The body of the memo and the Abstract must 604 be self-contained and separable. This may result in some duplication 605 of text between the Abstract and the Introduction; this is 606 acceptable. 608 4.8.1. Introduction Section 610 The Introduction section should always be the first section following 611 the TOC (except in the case of MIB module documents). While 612 "Introduction" is recommended, authors may choose alternate titles 613 such as "Overview" or "Background". These alternates are acceptable. 615 For MIB module documents, common practice has been for "The Internet- 616 Standard Management Framework" [MIB-BOILER] text to appear as 617 Section 1. 619 4.8.2. Requirements Language Section 621 Some documents use certain capitalized words ("MUST", "SHOULD", etc.) 622 to specify precise requirement levels for technical features. RFC 623 2119 [BCP14] defines a default interpretation of these capitalized 624 words in IETF documents. If this interpretation is used, RFC 2119 625 must be cited (as specified in RFC 2119) and included as a normative 626 reference. Otherwise, the correct interpretation must be specified 627 in the document. 629 This section must appear as part of the body of the memo (as defined 630 by this document). It must appear as part of, or subsequent to, the 631 Introduction section. 633 These words are considered part of the technical content of the 634 document and are intended to provide guidance to implementers about 635 specific technical features, generally governed by considerations of 636 interoperability. RFC 2119 says: 638 Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care 639 and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is 640 actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has 641 potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For 642 example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method 643 on implementers where the method is not required for 644 interoperability. 646 4.8.3. IANA Considerations Section 648 For guidance on how to register IANA-related values or create new 649 registries to be managed by IANA, see "Guidelines for Writing an IANA 650 Considerations Section in RFCs" [BCP26]. 652 The RFC Editor will update text accordingly after the IANA 653 assignments have been made. It is helpful for authors to clearly 654 identify where text should be updated to reflect the newly assigned 655 values. For example, the use of "TBD1", "TBD2", etc., is recommended 656 in the IANA Considerations section and in the body of the memo. 658 If the authors have provided values to be assigned by IANA, the RFC 659 Editor will verify that the values inserted by the authors match 660 those that have actually been registered on the IANA site. When 661 writing a given value, consistent use of decimal or hexadecimal is 662 recommended. 664 If any of the IANA-related information is not clear, the RFC Editor 665 will work with IANA to send queries to the authors to ensure that 666 assignments and values are properly inserted. 668 4.8.4. Internationalization Considerations Section 670 All RFCs that deal with internationalization issues should have a 671 section describing those issues; see "IETF Policy on Character Sets 672 and Languages" [BCP18], Section 6, for more information. 674 4.8.5. Security Considerations Section 676 All RFCs must contain a section that discusses the security 677 considerations relevant to the specification; see "Guidelines for 678 Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations" [BCP72] for more 679 information. 681 Note that additional boilerplate material for RFCs containing MIB and 682 YANG modules also exists. See "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB 683 Modules" [MIB-SEC] and "yang module security considerations" 684 [YANG-SEC] for details. 686 4.8.6. References Section 688 The reference list is solely for recording reference entries. 689 Introductory text or annotations beyond necessary translations 690 [RFC7997] are not allowed. 692 The RFC style allows the use of any of a variety of reference styles, 693 as long as they are used consistently within a document. However, 694 where necessary, some reference styles have been described for use 695 within the Series. See the following subsections as well as the 696 References section of this document. 698 Reference lists must indicate whether each reference is normative or 699 informative, where normative references are essential to implementing 700 or understanding the content of the RFC and informative references 701 provide additional information. More information about normative and 702 informative references may be found in the IESG's statement 703 "Normative and Informative References" [REFS]. When both normative 704 and informative references exist, the references section should be 705 split into two subsections: 707 Templates are available on the RFC Editor website for the XML format 708 of certain references [REFEXAMPLE]. 710 s. References 712 s.1. Normative References 714 xxx 715 ... 716 xxx 718 s.2. Informative References 720 xxx 721 ... 722 xxx 724 References will generally appear in alphanumeric order by citation 725 tag. Where there are only normative or informative references, no 726 subsection is required; the top-level section should say "Normative 727 References" or "Informative References". 729 Normative references to Internet-Drafts will cause publication of the 730 RFC to be suspended until the referenced draft is also ready for 731 publication; the RFC Editor will then update the entry to refer to 732 the RFC and publish both documents simultaneously. 734 4.8.6.1. Referencing RFCs 736 The following format is required for referencing RFCs. The Stream 737 abbreviation should be used; when no stream is available, as with 738 legacy RFCs, this may be left blank. 740 Note the ordering for multiple authors: the format of the name of the 741 last author listed is different than that of all previous authors in 742 the list. 744 For one author or editor: 746 [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC 747 Title", Stream, Sub-series number (if applicable), RFC number, RFC 748 DOI, Date of publication, 749 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc#). 751 Example: 753 [RFC3080] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core," 754 IETF, RFC 3080, DOI 10.17487/RFC3080, March 2001, (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3080). 757 [RFC8157] Leymann, N., Heidemann, C., Zhang, M., Sarikaya, B., and M. 758 Cullen, "Huawei's GRE Tunnel Bonding Protocol", independent, RFC 759 8157, DOI 10.17487/RFC8157, May 2017, (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8157). 762 For two authors or editors: 764 [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and First 765 initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", Stream, Sub- 766 series number (if applicable), RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of 767 publication, (https://www.rfc- 768 editor.org/info/rfc#). 770 Example: 772 [RFC6323] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "Sender RTT Estimate Option 773 for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", IETF, RFC 6323, 774 DOI 10.17487/RFC6323, July 2011, (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6323). 777 For three or more authors or editors: 779 [RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), Last name, 780 First initial., Ed. (if applicable), and First initial. Last name, 781 Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-series number (if 782 applicable), RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of publication, 783 (https://www.rfc- 784 editor.org/info/rfc#). 786 Example: 788 [RFC6429] Bashyam, M., Jethanandani, M., and A. Ramaiah, "TCP Sender 789 Clarification for Persist Condition", IETF, RFC 6429, DOI 10.17487/ 790 RFC6429, December 2011, >https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6429 < 791 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6429). 793 4.8.6.2. Referencing RFC(s) in a Subseries (STDs, BCPs, and FYIs 795 Internet Standards (STDs) and Best Current Practices (BCPs) may 796 consist of a single RFC or multiple RFCs. Authors should carefully 797 consider whether they want to point the reader to the specific RFC or 798 the sub series group. In the former case, references should appear 799 as described in Section 4.8.6.2. In the latter case, the sub series 800 number should take precedence as, for example, the citation tag, even 801 in cases where the sub series currently contains only one RFC. 803 When an STD or BCP that contains multiple RFCs is referenced as a sub 804 series group, the reference entry should include ALL of the RFCs 805 comprising that sub-series in a reference grouping under a single 806 citation tag [is it helpful to point them to 7991 or the like on how 807 to do this here?]. The authors should refer to the specific RFC 808 numbers as part of the text in the body of the document and cite the 809 sub series number (for example, "see RFC 2119 of [BCP14]"). 810 Inclusion of the URI to the STD or BCP info page (see Section 3.2.3 811 of [RFC5741]) is recommended. The text should appear as follows: 813 See RFC 1034 [STD13]. 815 For an STD or BCP that contains one RFC: 817 [STDXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", 818 Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of publication, 819 (https://www.rfc- 820 editor.org/info/std#). 822 Example: 824 [STD72] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail", 825 IETF, STD 72, RFC 6409, DOI 10.17487/RFC6409, November 2011, 826 (https://www.rfc- 827 editor.org/info/std72). 829 For an STD or BCP that contains two or more RFCs: 831 [STDXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", 832 Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of publication. 834 Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) 835 and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable), 836 "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, RFC DOI, 837 Date of publication. 839 841 Example: 843 [STD13] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 844 IETF, STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 846 Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 847 specification", IETF, STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, 848 November 1987. 850 852 Note - some RFCs contain an FYI sub-series number [FYI90] however, 853 the FYI series was ended by RFC 6360. RFCs that were published with 854 an FYI sub-series number and still maintain the FYI number must 855 include the sub-series number in the reference and may otherwise be 856 treated in the same manner as STDs and BCPs. 858 Grouping references to RFCs or other materials that are not part of a 859 sub-series is discouraged. 861 4.8.6.3. Referencing Internet-Drafts 863 References to Internet Drafts may only appear as informative 864 references. Given that several revisions of an I-D may be produced 865 in a short time frame, references must include the posting date 866 (month and year), the full Internet-Draft file name (including the 867 version number), and the phrase "Internet Draft". Authors may 868 reference multiple versions of an I-D. If the referenced I-D was 869 also later published as an RFC, then that RFC must also be listed. 870 The reference should include a stable URL for the draft, if 871 available. 873 [SYMBOLIC-TAG] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and 874 First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "I-D Title", Work in 875 Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-string-NN, Day Month Year, 876 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-something. 878 Example: 880 [RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", Work in 881 Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-flanagan-style-04, 27 September 2019, 882 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-flanagan-style-04. 884 4.8.6.4. Referencing Errata 886 The following format is required when a reference to an erratum 887 report is necessary: 889 [ErrNumber] RFC Errata, Erratum ID number, RFC number, 890 . 892 [Err1912] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1912, RFC 2978, . 895 4.8.6.5. Referencing IANA Registries 897 IANA registries may appear in normative or informative reference 898 sections. 900 [IANA-SYMBOLIC-TAG] 902 IANA, "Registry Name", . 904 4.8.6.6. Referencing Other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) 906 The following format is suggested when referencing a document or 907 standard from another SDO in which authors are listed: 909 [SYMBOLIC-TAG] 911 Last name, First initial. and First initial. Last name, 913 "Document Title", Document reference number, Date of 915 publication, . 917 [W3C.REC-xml11] 919 Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., 920 Yergeau, F., and J. Cowan, "Extensible Markup Language 922 (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)", W3C Recommendation 924 REC-xml11-20060816, August 2006, 926 . 928 The order of authors in the list is the same as the order shown on 929 the actual document and that the common, abbreviated form of the SDO 930 is used. 932 Alternatively, when no list of authors is available, the following 933 format is recommended: 935 [SYMBOLIC-TAG] Organization, "Document Title", Document 936 reference number, Date of publication, 937 . 939 Example (undated; see note below): 941 [IEEE.802.15.4] 942 IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks", 943 IEEE 802.15.4, 944 . 946 Example (dated; see note below): 948 [IEEE802.1Q] IEEE, "Local and Metropolitan Area 949 Networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) 950 Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area 951 Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011, August 2011, 952 955 Per the IEEE coordination team, listing dates for IEEE standards is 956 not recommended unless there is a need to cite a particular section, 957 in which case the dated reference is appropriate. An RFC with a 958 dated IEEE reference suggests that the RFC only applies to that 959 specific IEEE specification. 961 4.8.6.7. Referencing Webpages 963 References to webpages acceptable in either the normative or 964 informative sections, as long as the URL provided is the most stable 965 (i.e., unlikely to change and expected to be continuously available) 966 and direct reference possible. The URL will be verified as valid 967 during the RFC editorial process. 969 If a dated URI (one that includes a timestamp for the page) is 970 available for a referenced web page, its use is required. 972 Note that the URL may not be the sole information provided for a 973 reference entry. 975 The use of HTTPS rather than HTTP is strongly encouraged. 977 Example: 979 [SYMBOLIC-TAG] Author (if available), "Page Title (if available)", 980 . 982 [ISOC-MANRS] Internet Society, "Mutually Agreed 983 Norms for Routing Security", 984 986 4.8.6.8. Referencing Email on Mailing Lists 988 When referencing emails to mailing lists, the template provided here 989 should be used: 991 [reftag] Sender, A., "Subject: Subject line", message to the 993 listname mailing list, DD Month YYYY, . 995 4.8.6.9. Referencing Code Repositories 997 References to online code repositories such as GitHub or SourceForge 998 should be used as informative references only. The reference entry 999 should include the repository title, commit hash or similar release 1000 marker if available, date of last commit, and URL. 1002 Examples: 1004 [pysaml] "Python implementation of SAML2", commit 7135d53, 1005 6 March 2018, . 1007 [linuxlite] "Linux Lite", 9 March 2018, 1008 . 1010 4.9. Appendices Section 1012 The RFC Editor recommends placing references before the Appendices. 1013 Appendices should be labeled as "Appendix A. Title", "A.1. Title", 1014 "Appendix B. Title", etc. 1016 4.10. Acknowledgements Section 1018 This optional section may be used instead of, or in addition to, a 1019 Contributors section. It is often used by authors to publicly thank 1020 those who have provided feedback regarding a document and to note any 1021 documents from which text was borrowed. 1023 4.11. Contributors Section 1025 This optional section acknowledges those who have made significant 1026 contributions to the document. 1028 In a similar fashion to the Author's Address section, the RFC Editor 1029 does not make the determination as to who should be listed as a 1030 contributor to an RFC. The determination of who should be listed as 1031 a contributor is made by the stream. 1033 The Contributors section may include brief statements about the 1034 nature of particular contributions (e.g., "Sam contributed 1035 Section 3"), and it may also include affiliations of listed 1036 contributors. At the discretion of the author(s), contact addresses 1037 may also be included in the Contributors section, for those 1038 contributors whose knowledge makes them useful future contacts for 1039 information about the RFC. The format of any contact information 1040 should be similar to the format of information in the Author's 1041 Address section. 1043 4.12. Index 1045 If included, an index appears at the end of the document, immediately 1046 before Author's Address section. 1048 4.13. Author's Address or Authors' Addresses Section 1050 This required section gives contact information for the author(s) 1051 listed in the first-page header. 1053 Contact information must include a long-lived email address and 1054 optionally may include a postal address and/or telephone number. If 1055 the postal address is included, it should include the country name, 1056 using the English short name listed by the ISO 3166 Maintenance 1057 Agency [ISO_OBP]. The purpose of this section is to (1) 1058 unambiguously define author identity (e.g., the John Smith who works 1059 for FooBar Systems) and (2) provide contact information for future 1060 readers who have questions or comments. 1062 The practice of munged email addresses (i.e., altering an email 1063 address to make it less readable to bots and web crawlers to avoid 1064 spam) is not appropriate in an archival document series. Author 1065 contact information is provided so that readers can easily contact 1066 the author with questions and/or comments. Address munging is not 1067 allowed in RFCs. 1069 5. Security Considerations 1071 This document has no security considerations. 1073 6. IANA Considerations 1075 This document has no IANA considerations. 1077 7. Change Log 1079 This section to be removed before publication. 1081 -00 to -01: Citation tag requirements more tightly specified; 1082 index moved; new errata URI added; capitalization of working/ 1083 research group specified 1085 -01 to -02: update Abstract guidance 1087 -02 to -03: updated citation section; changed list styles; added 1088 angle brackets to reference examples; changed I-D reference 1089 format; clarified sub-series reference format; added guidance on 1090 referencing code repositories 1092 -03 to -04: updated Reference Section guidance; added information 1093 on alt text 1095 -04 to -05: change author, add acknowledgement 1097 8. References 1099 8.1. Normative References 1101 [STYLE-WEB] 1102 RFC Editor, "Web Portion of the Style Guide", 1103 . 1105 8.2. Informative References 1107 [ABBR] RFC Editor, "RFC Editor Abbreviations List", 1108 . 1111 [ALTTEXT] W3C, "Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.1: Info and 1112 Relationships", 1113 . 1116 [BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1117 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997, 1118 . 1120 [BCP18] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and 1121 Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998, 1122 . 1124 [BCP26] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an 1125 ANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 1126 2008, . 1128 [BCP32] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS 1129 Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999, 1130 . 1132 [BCP72] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC 1133 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 1134 2003, . 1136 [CLUSTER] RFC Editor, "Clusters in the RFC Editor Queue", 1137 . 1139 [CMOS] University of Chicago Press, 2010, "Chicago Manual of 1140 Style, 16th ed.", 2010. 1142 [FYI90] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction to 1143 the FYI Notes", FYI 90, RFC 1150, March 1990, 1144 . Housley, R., 1145 "Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series", RFC 6360, August 2011. 1147 [IAB-FORM] IAB, "Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream", 1148 . 1151 [ID-GUIDE] IETF, "Guidelines to Authors of Internet Drafts", 1152 . 1154 [IETF-TRUST] 1155 IETF Trust, "Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)", 1156 . 1158 [ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and 1159 documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, "Identification and 1160 description, Information and documentation - International 1161 standard serial number (ISSN)", September 2007. 1163 [ISO_OBP] ISO, "Online Browsing Platform (OBP)", 1164 . 1166 [MIB-BOILER] 1167 IETF OPS Area, "Boilerplate for IETF MIB Documents", 1168 . 1170 [MIB-SEC] IETF OPS Area, "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules", 1171 . 1174 [REFEXAMPLE] 1175 RFC Editor, "Reference Examples", 1176 . 1178 [REFS] IESG, "IESG Statement: Normative and Informative", 1179 . 1182 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 1183 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, 1184 July 2007, . 1186 [RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor 1187 Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June 1188 2012, . 1190 [RFC7669] Levine, J., "Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to 1191 RFCs", RFC 7669, DOI 10.17487/RFC7669, October 2015, 1192 . 1194 [RFC7841] Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed., 1195 "RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841, 1196 DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016, 1197 . 1199 [RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990, 1200 DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016, 1201 . 1203 [RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary", 1204 RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016, 1205 . 1207 [RFC7996] Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC", 1208 RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016, 1209 . 1211 [RFC7997] Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in 1212 RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016, 1213 . 1215 [STD66] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 1216 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 1217 RFC 3986, January 2005, 1218 . 1220 [TERMS] RFC Editor, "Terms List", 1221 . 1223 [YANG-SEC] IETF Ops Area, "yang module security considerations", 1224 . 1227 Appendix A. Related Procedures 1229 The following procedures are related to the application and updating 1230 of the RFC Style Guide. 1232 A.1. Dispute Resolution 1234 There are competing rationales for some of the rules described in 1235 this Guide, and the RFC Editor has selected the ones that work best 1236 for the Series. However, at times, an author may have a disagreement 1237 with the RFC Production Center (RPC) over the application of Style 1238 Guide conventions. In such cases, the authors should discuss their 1239 concerns with the RPC. If no agreement can be reached between the 1240 RPC and the authors, the RFC Series Editor will, with input from the 1241 appropriate stream-approving body, make a final determination. If 1242 further resolution is required, the dispute resolution process as 1243 described in the RFC Editor Model [RFC6635] will be followed. 1245 A.2. Returning an I-D to the Document Stream 1247 For a given document, if the RFC Editor determines that it cannot be 1248 edited without serious risk of altering the meaning of the technical 1249 content or if the RFC Editor does not have the resources to provide 1250 the level of editing it needs, it may be sent back to the stream- 1251 approving body with a request to improve the clarity, consistency, 1252 and/or readability of the document. This is not to be considered a 1253 dispute with the author. 1255 A.3. Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages 1257 The RFC Series is continually evolving as a document series. This 1258 document focuses on the fundamental and stable requirements that must 1259 be met by an RFC. From time to time, the RFC Editor may offer less 1260 formal recommendations that authors may apply at their discretion; 1261 these recommendations may be found on the RFC Editor website 1262 "Guidelines for RFC Style" [STYLE-WEB]. 1264 When a new recommendation is made regarding the overall structure and 1265 formatting of RFCs, it will be published on that page and accepted 1266 for a period of time before the RFC Editor determines whether it 1267 should become part of the fundamental requirements in the RFC Style 1268 Guide or remain as a less formal recommendation. That period of time 1269 will vary, in part depending on the frequency with which authors 1270 encounter and apply the guidance. 1272 Appendix B. Acknowledgements 1274 Much of this document was written by Heather Flanagan during her term 1275 as RFC Editor. 1277 Authors' Addresses 1279 John Levine (editor) 1280 Temporary RFC Series Project Manager 1282 Email: standards@standcore.com 1283 URI: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7553-5024 1285 Sandy Ginoza 1286 RFC Editor 1288 Email: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org 1289 URI: https://www.rfc-editor.org