idnits 2.17.1 draft-iab-rfc5741bis-02.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 (February 2, 2016) is 3006 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC5378' is defined on line 400, 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 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 (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 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: August 5, 2016 O. Kolkman, Ed. 7 Internet Society 8 Internet Architecture Board 9 (IAB) 10 February 2, 2016 12 On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates 13 draft-iab-rfc5741bis-02 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 August 5, 2016. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 80 C.1. RFC Title Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 81 C.2. Constructing a "Status of this Memo" Section . . . . . . 11 82 C.2.1. First Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 83 C.2.2. Second Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 84 C.2.3. Third Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 87 1. Introduction 89 Previously RFCs (e.g. [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that 90 were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also 91 contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the 92 document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document 93 interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents. 95 As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been 96 increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to 97 make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it 98 describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as 99 part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs 100 that may have had a very different review and approval process. 101 Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving 102 text of "Notes" included in the published RFC. 104 With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844], it is 105 appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of 106 standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure 107 better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the 108 review and approval processes defined for each stream. 110 This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC 111 boilerplate structure. It describes the content required for each 112 kind of information. Details of exact textual and layout 113 requirements are left to a web page maintained by the IAB, with due 114 consultation with the community, for ease of maintenance. This 115 document obsoletes [RFC5741]. 117 The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as 118 practically possible after the document has been approved for 119 publication. 121 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards 123 Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet Standards- 124 related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet 125 Standards-related documents. 127 The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards 128 Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing 129 and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other 130 standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are 131 reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF 132 Stream. 134 Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not 135 generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, 136 congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed 137 protocols. They have also not been subject to approval by the 138 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide 139 last call. Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF 140 Stream documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any 141 purpose. 143 Refer to [RFC2026], [RFC5742], [RFC4844], [RFC6410], and [RFC7127] 144 and their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC 145 streams. 147 3. RFC Structural Elements 149 This section describes the elements that are commonly found in RFCs 150 published today. This document specifies information that is 151 required in these publications. Exact specification of the textual 152 values required therein are provided by an IAB web page 154 (URL to be provided during AUTH48). 156 As noted above, this web page is maintained by the IAB with due 157 consultation with the community. Following such consultation, if the 158 IAB decides to make any changes to this material, the changes will be 159 announced in a similar fashion to other IAB statements. Initial 160 proposed text to be used in that web page is included in Appendix C. 162 3.1. The title page header 164 The information at the front of the RFC includes the name and 165 affiliation of the authors as well as the RFC publication month and 166 year. 168 There is a set of additional information that is needed at the front 169 of the RFC. Historically, this has been presented with the 170 information below in a left hand column, and the author related 171 information described above in the right. 173 This describes the area where the work originates. 174 Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group. 175 "Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's 176 IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and 177 whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got 178 together to discuss, design and document proposed protocols 179 [RFC0003]. Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working Group" in 180 order to indicate the originating stream. 182 The is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in 183 [RFC4844] and its successors. At the time of this publication, 184 the streams, and therefore the possible entries are: 186 * Internet Engineering Task Force 188 * Internet Architecture Board 190 * Internet Research Task Force 191 * Independent Submission 193 Request for Comments: This indicates the RFC number, 194 assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This 195 element is unchanged. 197 Some document categories are also 198 labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as 199 appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the 200 documents number within that series. Currently, there are 201 subseries for BCPs [RFC2026] and STDs [RFC1311]. These subseries 202 numbers may appear in several RFCs. For example, when a new RFC 203 obsoletes or updates an old one, the same subseries number is 204 used. Also, several RFCs may be assigned the same subseries 205 number: a single STD, for example, may be composed of several 206 RFCs, each of which will bear the same STD number. This element 207 is unchanged. 209 [:] Some relations between RFCs in the 210 series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new 211 RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two 212 relationships are defined: "Updates", and "Obsoletes" [RFC7322]. 213 Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]). 214 Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor and 215 may appear in future RFCs. 217 Category: This indicates the initial RFC document 218 category of the publication. These are defined in [RFC2026]. 219 Currently, this is always one of: Standards Track, Best Current 220 Practice, Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element 221 is unchanged. 223 3.2. The Status of this Memo 225 The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC, 226 including the distribution statement. 228 The "Status of This Memo" will start with a single sentence 229 describing the status. It will also include a statement describing 230 the stream-specific review of the material (which is stream- 231 dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar as it 232 clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader an 233 understanding of how to consider its content. 235 3.3. Paragraph 1 237 The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a 238 single sentence, clearly standing out. The sentence will clearly 239 identify the stream-specific status of the document. The text to be 240 used is defined by the stream, with IAB and RFC Series Editor review 241 for clarity. 243 3.4. Paragraph 2 245 The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will include a 246 paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has 247 received. This is defined on a per-stream basis, subject to general 248 review and oversight by the RFC Editor and IAB. The IAB defines a 249 specific structure defined to ensure there is clarity about review 250 processes and document types. 252 3.5. Paragraph 3 254 The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant 255 information can be found. This information may include, subject to 256 the RFC Editor's discretion, information whether the RFC has been 257 updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a listing of possible errata, 258 information about how to provide feedback and suggestion, and 259 information on how to submit errata as described in 260 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. The exact wording and URL is 261 subject to change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text 262 is: 264 "Information about the current status of this document, any errata, 265 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc- 266 editor.org//rfc.html" 268 3.6. Noteworthy 270 Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate 271 the initial status of a document. During their lifetime documents 272 can change status to e.g. Historic. This cannot be reflected in the 273 document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered 274 to in Section 5. 276 4. Additional Notes 278 Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe 279 additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status 280 of This Memo". 282 While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal 283 of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear 284 to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly 285 exceptional. 287 5. Other structural information in RFCs 289 RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor 290 is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural 291 elements. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted 292 using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or 293 may not require documentation in an RFC. 295 Currently the following structural information is available or is 296 being considered for inclusion in RFCs: 298 Copyright Notice A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78 299 [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78 300 and BCP79 [BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined by 301 those BCPs. 303 ISSN The International Standard Serial Number [ISO.3297.2007]: ISSN 304 2070-1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title 305 regardless of language or country in which it is published. The 306 ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique 307 identification of a serial publication. 309 6. Security considerations 311 This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an 312 RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause 313 interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems. 315 7. IANA considerations 317 None. 319 8. RFC Editor Considerations 321 The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the 322 RFC series. To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual 323 [RFC7322]. In this memo we mention a few explicit structural 324 elements that the RFC editor needs to maintain. The conventions for 325 the content and use of all current and future elements are to be 326 documented in the style manual. 328 Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one 329 method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated. The RFC 330 editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and 331 interfaces. 333 [The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards 334 editing this document and can be removed before publication] 336 This section of the document needs to be removed before publication. 338 This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be 339 implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit 340 tracker and the rfc-erratum portal. 342 The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo. 344 In section Section 5: For the final publication, it should be 345 warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity. 347 9. References 349 9.1. Normative References 351 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 352 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, 353 . 355 [RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for 356 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", 357 BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009, 358 . 360 9.2. Informative References 362 [ISO.3297.2007] 363 Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and 364 documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and 365 description., "Information and documentation - 366 International standard serial number (ISSN)", ISO Standard 367 3297, 09 2007. 369 [RFC0003] Crocker, S., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3, 370 DOI 10.17487/RFC0003, April 1969, 371 . 373 [RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, 374 DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992, 375 . 377 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, 378 DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999, 379 . 381 [RFC3979] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF 382 Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, DOI 10.17487/RFC3979, March 383 2005, . 385 [RFC4749] Sollaud, A., "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio 386 Codec", RFC 4749, DOI 10.17487/RFC4749, October 2006, 387 . 389 [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC 390 Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, 391 July 2007, . 393 [RFC5143] Malis, A., Brayley, J., Shirron, J., Martini, L., and S. 394 Vogelsang, "Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous 395 Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation Service 396 over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation", RFC 5143, 397 DOI 10.17487/RFC5143, February 2008, 398 . 400 [RFC5378] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights 401 Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, 402 DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008, 403 . 405 [RFC5741] Daigle, L., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Streams, 406 Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, 407 DOI 10.17487/RFC5741, December 2009, 408 . 410 [RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the 411 Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410, 412 DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011, 413 . 415 [RFC7127] Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization 416 of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127, 417 DOI 10.17487/RFC7127, January 2014, 418 . 420 [RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322, 421 DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014, 422 . 424 [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process] 425 Ginoza, S., Hagens, A., and R. Braden, "RFC Editor 426 Proposal for Handling RFC Errata", draft-rfc-editor- 427 errata-process-02 (work in progress), May 2008. 429 [BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights 430 Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, November 431 2008. 433 At the moment of publication:[RFC5378] 435 [BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual 436 Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007. 438 At the moment of publication:[RFC3979]and[RFC4749] 440 Appendix A. IAB members at time of approval 442 The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in 443 alphabetical order): 445 Appendix B. Acknowledgements 447 Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza, 448 and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration. 450 Thanks to the members of the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) 451 for assistance and review: Alexey Melnikov, Nevil Brownlee, Bob 452 Hinden, Sarah Banks, Robert Sparks, Tony Hansen, and Joe Hildebrand. 454 Various people have made suggestions that improved the document. 455 Among them are: Lars Eggert, Alfred Hoenes, and Joe Touch. 457 This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. 459 Appendix C. Initial Formating Details 461 This section provides suggested starting text for the use of the IAB 462 in order to simplify populating the web page to be used to maintain 463 the list of required verbiage. 465 C.1. RFC Title Page Header 467 An RFC title page header can be described as follows: 469 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 470 471 Request for Comments: [] 472 [ ] [more author info as appropriate] 473 [:] 474 Category: 475 477 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 479 For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows: 481 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 482 Network Working Group T. Dierks 483 Request for Comments: 4346 Independent 484 Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla 485 Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc. 486 April 2006 488 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 490 C.2. Constructing a "Status of this Memo" Section 492 The following sections describe mandated text for use in specific 493 parts of the "Status of this Memo" portion of an RFC. For 494 convenience, the RFC Editor maintains example expansions of all 495 permutations of the paragraphs described in this document (at the 496 time of publication, at http://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/status- 497 memos.txt). When in conflict, these following sections are 498 authoritative. 500 C.2.1. First Paragraph 502 The following are the approved texts for use in the first paragraph 503 of the "Status of this Memo" portion of an RFC. See RFCXXXX section 504 3.3. 506 For 'Standards Track' documents: "This is an Internet Standards 507 Track document." 509 For 'Best Current Practices' documents: "This memo documents an 510 Internet Best Current Practice." 512 For other categories "This document is not an Internet Standards 513 Track specification; ." 515 For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of 516 RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for . Initial values are: 519 Informational: "it is published for informational purposes." 521 Historic: "it is published for the historical record." 523 Experimental: "it is published for examination, experimental 524 implementation, and evaluation." 526 C.2.2. Second Paragraph 528 See RFCXXXX section 3.4. 530 The second paragraph may include some text that is specific to the 531 initial document category, as follows: when a document is 532 Experimental or Historic the second paragraph opens with: 534 Experimental: "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for 535 the Internet community." 537 Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the 538 Internet community." 540 The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values 541 and may be updated by stream definition document updates and recorded 542 by the IAB on the web page.. 544 IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering 545 Task Force (IETF)." 547 If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, this 548 additional text should be added: "It represents the consensus of 549 the IETF community. It has received public review and has been 550 approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering 551 Group (IESG)." If there has not been such a consensus call then 552 this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the 553 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)." 555 IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture 556 Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed 557 valuable to provide for permanent record." 559 If the document represents IAB consensus, this additional text 560 should be added: "It represents the consensus of the Internet 561 Architecture Board (IAB)." 563 IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research 564 Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- 565 related research and development activities. These results might 566 not be suitable for deployment." 568 In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the 569 IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the 570 Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force 571 (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual 572 opinion(s) of one or more members of the Research 573 Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)". 575 Independent Submission Stream: "This is a contribution to the RFC 576 Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has 577 chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no 578 statement about its value for implementation or deployment. 580 For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is 581 added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for 582 publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB", 583 "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of 584 Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." 586 For IETF stream documents a similar reference is added: "Further 587 information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2 588 of RFC XXXX." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all 589 documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of 590 Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." for all other 591 categories. 593 C.2.3. Third Paragraph 595 See RFCXXXX section 3.5. 597 Authors' Addresses 599 Joel M. Halpern (editor) 601 Email: jmh@joelhalpern.com 603 Leslie Daigle (editor) 605 Email: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com 606 Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) 607 Internet Society 609 Email: kolkman@isoc.org 611 Internet Architecture Board 613 Email: iab@iab.org