idnits 2.17.1 draft-iab-rfc5741bis-00.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 date (November 2, 2015) is 3091 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC1150' is defined on line 380, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3967' is defined on line 392, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5378' is defined on line 416, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3 (Obsoleted by RFC 10) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1150 (Obsoleted by RFC 6360) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2629 (Obsoleted by RFC 7749) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3979 (Obsoleted by RFC 8179) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4844 (Obsoleted by RFC 8729) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5143 (Obsoleted by RFC 4842) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5741 (Obsoleted by RFC 7841) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Halpern, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft 4 Obsoletes: 5741 (if approved) L. Daigle, Ed. 5 Intended status: Informational 6 Expires: May 5, 2016 O. Kolkman, Ed. 7 Internet Society 8 Internet Architecture Board 9 (IAB) 10 November 2, 2015 12 On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates 13 draft-iab-rfc5741bis-00 15 Abstract 17 RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title 18 page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements. 19 This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect 20 current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, 21 this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source 22 of RFC creation and review. This document obsoletes RFC 5741, moving 23 detailed content to an IAB web page and preparing for more flexible 24 output formats. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 5, 2016. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3. RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3.1. The title page header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 3.2. The Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 3.3. Paragraph 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 3.4. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 3.5. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 3.6. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 4. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 5. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 8. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 77 Appendix A. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 79 Appendix C. Initial Formating Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 80 C.1. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates . . . . . 11 81 C.1.1. IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 82 C.1.2. IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call . . . . . . . 11 83 C.1.3. IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . 12 84 C.1.4. IAB Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 85 C.1.5. IRTF Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 C.1.6. Independent Submission Informational . . . . . . . . 14 87 C.2. RFC Title Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 88 C.3. Samples regarding Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . 15 89 C.3.1. First Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 90 C.3.2. Second Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 91 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 93 1. Introduction 95 Previously RFCs (e.g. [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that 96 were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also 97 contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the 98 document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document 99 interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents. 101 As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been 102 increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to 103 make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it 104 describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as 105 part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs 106 that may have had a very different review and approval process. 107 Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving 108 text of "Notes" included in the published RFC. 110 With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844], it is 111 appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of 112 standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure 113 better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the 114 review and approval processes defined for each stream. 116 This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC 117 boilerplate structure. It describes the content required for each 118 kind of information. Details of exact textual and layout 119 requirements are left to a web page maintained by the IAB, with due 120 consultation with the community, for ease of maintenance. This 121 document obsoletes [RFC5741]. 123 The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as 124 practically possible after the document has been approved for 125 publication. 127 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards 129 Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet Standards- 130 related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet 131 Standards-related documents. 133 The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards 134 Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing 135 and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other 136 standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are 137 reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF 138 Stream. 140 Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not 141 generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, 142 congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed 143 protocols. They have also not been subject to approval by the 144 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide 145 last call. Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF 146 Stream documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any 147 purpose. 149 Refer to [RFC2026], [RFC5742], [RFC4844], [RFC6410], and [RFC7127] 150 and their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC 151 streams. 153 3. RFC Structural Elements 155 This section describes the elements that are commonly found in RFCs 156 published today. This document specifies information that is 157 required in these publications. Exact specification of the textual 158 values required therein will be provided by an IAB web page 160 (URL to be provided). 162 As noted above, this web page is maintained by the IAB with due 163 consultation with the community. Initial proposed text to be used in 164 that web page is included in Appendix C. 166 3.1. The title page header 168 The information at the front of the RFC includes the name and 169 affiliation of the authors of the The right column contains author 170 name and affiliation as well as the RFC publication month. 172 There is a set of additional information that is needed at the front 173 of the RFC. Historically, this has been presented with the 174 information below in a left hand column, and the author related 175 information described above in the right. 177 This describes the area where the work originates. 178 Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group. 179 "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's 180 IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and 181 whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got 182 together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols 183 [RFC0003]. Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working Group" in 184 order to indicate the originating stream. 186 The is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in 187 [RFC4844] and its successors. At the time of this publication, 188 the streams, and therefore the possible entries are: 190 * Internet Engineering Task Force 192 * Internet Architecture Board 194 * Internet Research Task Force 196 * Independent 198 Request for Comments: This indicates the RFC number, 199 assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This 200 element is unchanged. 202 Some document categories are also 203 labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as 204 appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the 205 documents number within that series. Currently, there are 206 subseries for BCPs [RFC2026] and STDs [RFC1311]. These subseries 207 numbers may appear in several RFCs. For example, when a new RFC 208 obsoletes or updates an old one, the same subseries number is 209 used. Also, several RFCs may be assigned the same subseries 210 number: a single STD, for example, may be composed of several 211 RFCs, each of which will bear the same STD number. This element 212 is unchanged. 214 [:] Some relations between RFCs in the 215 series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new 216 RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two 217 relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC7322]. 218 Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]). 219 Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor and 220 may appear in future RFCs. 222 Category: This indicates the initial RFC document 223 category of the publication. These are defined in [RFC2026]. 224 Currently, this is always one of: Standards Track, Best Current 225 Practice, Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element 226 is unchanged. 228 3.2. The Status of this Memo 230 The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC, 231 including the distribution statement. This text is included 232 irrespective of the source stream of the RFC. 234 The "Status of This Memo" will start with a single sentence 235 describing the status. It will also include a statement describing 236 the stream-specific review of the material (which is stream- 237 dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar as it 238 clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader an 239 understanding of how to consider its content. 241 3.3. Paragraph 1 243 The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a 244 single sentence, clearly standing out. It depends on the category of 245 the document. 247 3.4. Paragraph 2 249 The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a 250 paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has 251 received. This is defined on a per-stream basis, subject to general 252 review and oversight by the RFC Editor and IAB. The IAB defines a 253 specific structure defined to ensure there is clarity about review 254 processes and document types. 256 3.5. Paragraph 3 258 The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant 259 information can be found. This information may include, subject to 260 the RFC Editor's discretion, information whether the RFC has been 261 updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a listing of possible errata, 262 information about how to provide feedback and suggestion, and 263 information on how to submit errata as described in 264 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. The exact wording and URL is 265 subject to change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text 266 is: 268 "Information about the current status of this document, any errata, 269 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc- 270 editor.org//rfc.html" 272 3.6. Noteworthy 274 Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate 275 the initial status of a document. During their lifetime documents 276 can change status to e.g. Historic. This cannot be reflected in the 277 document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered 278 to in Section 5. 280 4. Additional Notes 282 Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe 283 additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status 284 of This Memo". 286 While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal 287 of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear 288 to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly 289 exceptional. 291 5. Other structural information in RFCs 293 RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor 294 is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural 295 element. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted 296 using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or 297 may not require documentation in an RFC. 299 Currently the following structural information is available or is 300 being considered for inclusion in RFCs: 302 Copyright Notice A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78 303 [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78 304 and BCP79 [BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined by 305 those BCPs. 307 ISSN The International Standard Serial Number [ISO.3297.2007]: ISSN 308 2070-1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title 309 regardless of language or country in which it is published. The 310 ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique 311 identification of a serial publication. 313 6. Security considerations 315 This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an 316 RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause 317 interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems. 319 7. IANA considerations 321 None. 323 8. RFC Editor Considerations 325 The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the 326 RFC series. To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual 327 [RFC7322]. In this memo we mention a few explicit structural 328 elements that the RFC editor needs to maintain. The conventions for 329 the content and use of all current and future elements are to be 330 documented in the style manual. 332 Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one 333 method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated. The RFC 334 editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and 335 interfaces. 337 [The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards 338 editing this document and can be removed before publication] 340 This section of the document needs to be removed before publication. 342 This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be 343 implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit 344 tracker and the rfc-erratum portal. 346 The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo. 348 In section Section 5: For the final publication, it should be 349 warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity. 351 The URL in Appendix C.1 should be replaced with whatever the RFC 352 Editor decides upon. 354 9. References 356 9.1. Normative References 358 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 359 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 360 . 362 [RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for 363 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", 364 BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009, 365 . 367 9.2. Informative References 369 [ISO.3297.2007] 370 Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and 371 documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and 372 description., "Information and documentation - 373 International standard serial number (ISSN)", ISO Standard 374 3297, 09 2007. 376 [RFC0003] Crocker, S., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3, 377 DOI 10.17487/RFC0003, April 1969, 378 . 380 [RFC1150] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction to 381 the FYI Notes", RFC 1150, DOI 10.17487/RFC1150, March 382 1990, . 384 [RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, 385 DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992, 386 . 388 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, 389 DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999, 390 . 392 [RFC3967] Bush, R. and T. Narten, "Clarifying when Standards Track 393 Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents at a Lower 394 Level", BCP 97, RFC 3967, DOI 10.17487/RFC3967, December 395 2004, . 397 [RFC3979] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF 398 Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, DOI 10.17487/RFC3979, March 399 2005, . 401 [RFC4749] Sollaud, A., "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio 402 Codec", RFC 4749, DOI 10.17487/RFC4749, October 2006, 403 . 405 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 406 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, 407 July 2007, . 409 [RFC5143] Malis, A., Brayley, J., Shirron, J., Martini, L., and S. 410 Vogelsang, "Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous 411 Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation Service 412 over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation", RFC 5143, 413 DOI 10.17487/RFC5143, February 2008, 414 . 416 [RFC5378] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights 417 Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, 418 DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008, 419 . 421 [RFC5741] Daigle, L., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Streams, 422 Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, 423 DOI 10.17487/RFC5741, December 2009, 424 . 426 [RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the 427 Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410, 428 DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011, 429 . 431 [RFC7127] Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization 432 of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127, 433 DOI 10.17487/RFC7127, January 2014, 434 . 436 [RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322, 437 DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014, 438 . 440 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process] 441 Ginoza, S., Hagens, A., and R. Braden, "RFC Editor 442 Proposal for Handling RFC Errata", draft-rfc-editor- 443 errata-process-02 (work in progress), May 2008. 445 [BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights 446 Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, November 447 2008. 449 At the moment of publication:[RFC5378] 451 [BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual 452 Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007. 454 At the moment of publication:[RFC3979]and[RFC4749] 456 Appendix A. IAB members at time of approval 458 The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in 459 alphabetical order): 461 Appendix B. Acknowledgements 463 Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza, 464 and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration. 466 Thanks to the members of the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) 467 for assistance and review: Alexey Melnikov, Nevil Brownlee, Bob 468 Hinden, Sarah Banks, Robert Sparks, and Joe Hildebrand. 470 Various people have made suggestions that improved the document. 471 Among them are: Lars Eggert, Alfred Hoenes, and Joe Touch. 473 This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. 475 Appendix C. Initial Formating Details 477 This section provides suggested starting text for the use of the IAB 478 in order to simplify populating the web page to be used to maintain 479 the list of requried verbiage. 481 C.1. Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates 483 [Editor note: The URLs used in this example are examples.] 485 C.1.1. IETF Standards Track 487 The boilerplate for a Standards Track document that (by definition) 488 has been subject to an IETF consensus call. 490 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 491 Status of this Memo 493 This is an Internet Standards Track document. 495 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force 496 (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF community. It has 497 received public review and has been approved for publication by 498 the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on 499 the Internet Standards Track is available in Section 2 of RFC 500 XXXX." 502 Information about the current status of this document, any 503 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 504 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc0000.html 506 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 508 C.1.2. IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call 510 The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been subject to 511 an IETF consensus call. 513 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 514 Status of this Memo 516 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 517 has been published for Experimental purposes. 519 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet 520 community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are 521 requested. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 522 Task Force (IETF). It represents a consensus of the IETF 523 community. It has received public review and has been approved 524 for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group 525 (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for 526 any level of Internet Standards see Section 2 of RFC XXXX. 528 Information about the current status of this document, any 529 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 530 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc0000.html 531 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 533 C.1.3. IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call 535 The boilerplate for an Experimental document that not has been 536 subject to an IETF consensus call. 538 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 539 Status of this Memo 541 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 542 has been published for Experimental purposes. 544 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet 545 community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 546 Task Force (IETF). It has been approved for publication by the 547 Internet Engineering Steering Group. Not all documents approved 548 by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet Standards see 549 Section 2 of RFC XXXX. 551 Information about the current status of this document, any 552 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 553 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc0000.html 554 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 556 C.1.4. IAB Informational 558 The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document. 560 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 561 Status of this Memo 563 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 564 has been published for Informational purposes. 566 This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board 567 (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable 568 to provide for permanent record. Documents approved for 569 publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of 570 Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." 572 Information about the current status of this document, any 573 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 574 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc0000.html 575 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 577 C.1.5. IRTF Experimental 579 The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been produced 580 by the IRTF and for which there was no RG consensus. This variation 581 is the most verbose boilerplate in the current set. 583 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 584 Status of this Memo 586 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it 587 has been published for Experimental purposes. 589 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet 590 community. This document is a product of the Internet Research 591 Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- 592 related research and development activities. These results might 593 not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the individual 594 opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of 595 the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for 596 publication by the IRTF are not a candidate for any level of 597 Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." 599 Information about the current status of this document, any 600 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 601 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc0000.html 602 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 603 C.1.6. Independent Submission Informational 605 The boilerplate for an Informational document that has been produced 606 by the Independent Submission stream. 608 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 609 Status of This Memo 611 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is 612 published for informational purposes. 614 This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any 615 other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this 616 document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value 617 for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for 618 publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of 619 Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. 621 Information about the current status of this document, any 622 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at 623 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc0000.html 624 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 626 C.2. RFC Title Page Header 628 An RFC title page header can be described as follows: 630 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 631 632 Request for Comments: [] 633 [ ] [more author info as appropriate] 634 [:] 635 Category: 636 638 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 640 For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows: 642 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 643 Network Working Group T. Dierks 644 Request for Comments: 4346 Independent 645 Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla 646 Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc. 647 April 2006 649 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 650 C.3. Samples regarding Status of this Memo 652 The following sections describe mandated text for use in specific 653 parts of the "Status of this Memo" portion of an RFC. 655 C.3.1. First Paragraph 657 The following are the approved texts for use in the first paragraph 658 of the "Status of this Memo" portion of an RFC. 660 For 'Standards Track' documents: "This is an Internet Standards 661 Track document." 663 For 'Best Current Practices' documents: "This memo documents an 664 Internet Best Current Practice." 666 For other categories "This document is not an Internet Standards 667 Track specification; ." 669 For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of 670 RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for . Initial values are: 673 Informational: "it is published for informational purposes." 675 Historic: "it is published for the historical record." 677 Experimental: "it is published for examination, experimental 678 implementation, and evaluation." 680 C.3.2. Second Paragraph 682 The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial 683 document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or 684 Historic the second paragraph opens with: 686 Experimental: "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for 687 the Internet community." 689 Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the 690 Internet community." 692 The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values 693 and may be updated by stream definition document updates and recorded 694 by the IAB on the web page.. 696 IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 697 Task Force (IETF)." 698 If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an 699 additional sentence should be added: "It represents the consensus 700 of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been 701 approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering 702 Group (IESG)." If there has not been such a consensus call then 703 this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the 704 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)." 706 IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture 707 Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed 708 valuable to provide for permanent record." 710 IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research 711 Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- 712 related research and development activities. These results might 713 not be suitable for deployment." 715 In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the 716 IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the 717 Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force 718 (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual 719 opinion(s) of one or more members of the Research 720 Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)". 722 Independent Stream: "This is a contribution to the RFC Series, 723 independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen 724 to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement 725 about its value for implementation or deployment. 727 For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is 728 added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for 729 publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB", 730 "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of 731 Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." 733 For IETF stream documents a similar reference is added: "Further 734 information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2 735 of RFC XXXX." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all 736 documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of 737 Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." for all other 738 categories. 740 Authors' Addresses 742 Joel M. Halpern (editor) 744 Email: jmh@joelhalpern.com 745 Leslie Daigle (editor) 747 Email: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com 749 Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) 750 Internet Society 752 Email: kolkman@isoc.org 754 Internet Architecture Board 756 Email: iab@iab.org