[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 5741
Network Working Group L. Daigle, Ed.
Internet-Draft O. Kolkman, Ed.
Updates: 4844, 2223
(if approved) Internet Architecture Board
Intended status: Informational (IAB)
Expires: April 9, 2009 October 6, 2008
On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-01
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 9, 2009.
Abstract
RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title
page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements.
This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect
current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular,
this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source
of RFC creation and review.
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. The title page header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. The Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Document Editing Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B.1. version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B.1.1. open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
1. Introduction
Previously RFCs (e.g. [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements that
were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They also
contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of the
document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the document
interacts with IETF standard track documents.
As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been
increasing concern over appropriate labelling of the publications to
make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it
describes. Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as
part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs
that may have had a very different review and approval process.
Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving
text of "Notes" included in the published RFC.
With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844] it is
appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of
standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensure
better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the
review and approval processes defined for each stream.
This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC
boilerplate structure, and provides a comprehensive approach to
updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC
document and content status. Most of the historical structure
information is collected from [RFC2223].
The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as
practically possible after the document has been approved for
publication.
2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards
Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet standards-
related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet
standards-related documents.
The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards
Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing
and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other
standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are
reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF
Stream.
Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream are not
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, congestion control,
or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. They have also
not been subject to IESG approval, including an IETF-wide last call.
Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF Stream
documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any
purpose.
Refer to [RFC2026], [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis], and [RFC4844] and
their successors for current details of IETF process and RFC streams.
3. RFC Structural Elements
3.1. The title page header
An RFC title page header can be described as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<document source> <author name>
Request for Comments: <RFC number> [<author affiliation>]
[<subseries ID> <subseries number>] [more author info as appropriate]
[<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>]
Category: <category>
<month year>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Working Group T. Dierks
Request for Comments: 4346 Independent
Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla
Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc.
April 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right column contains author name and affiliation information as
well as RFC publication date. Conventions and restrictions for these
elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual stream
definitions.
This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left
column:
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
<document source> This describes the area where the work originates.
Historically, all RFCs were labeled Network Working Group.
"Network Working Group" refers to the original version of today's
IETF when people from the original set of ARPANET sites and
whomever else was interested -- the meetings were open -- got
together to discuss, design and document proposed
protocols[RFC0003]. Here, we obsolete the term "Network Working
Group" in order to indicate the originating stream.
The <document source> is the name of the RFC stream, as defined in
[RFC4844] and its successors. At the time of this publication,
the streams, and therefore the possible entries are:
* Internet Engineering Task Force
* Internet Architecture Board
* Internet Research Task Force
* Independent
Request for Comments: <RFC number> This indicates the RFC number,
assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document. This
element is unchanged.
<subseries ID> <subseries number> Some document categories are also
labeled as a subseries of RFCs. These elements appear as
appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the
documents number within that series. Currently, there are
subseries for BCPs, STDs and FYIs. These subseries numbers may
appear in several RFCs. For example, when a new RFC updates an
old one, the same subseries number is used. Also, several RFCs
may be assigned the same subseries number: a single STD, for
example, may be composed of several RFCs, each of which will bear
the same STD number. This element is unchanged.
[<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>] Some relations between RFCs in the
series are explicitly noted in the RFC header. For example, a new
RFC may update one or more earlier RFCs. Currently two
relationships are defined "Updates" and "Obsoletes". Other types
of relations may be defined elsewhere.
Category: <category> This indicates the RFC document category of the
publication. These are defined in [RFC2026]. Currently, this is
always one of: Standards Track, Best Current Practice,
Experimental, Informational, or Historic. This element is
unchanged.
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
3.2. The Status of this Memo
The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC,
including the distribution statement. This text is included
irrespective of the source stream of the RFC.
From now on, the "Status of This Memo" will start with a single line
describing the status. It will also include a statement describing
the stream-specific review of the material (which is stream-
dependent). This is an important component of status, insofar as it
clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader an
understanding of how to consider its content.
The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a
single line, clearly standing out. It depends on the category of the
document.
This memo is an Internet Standards Track document.
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice
This memo is not an Internet Standards Track specifiation, <it is
published for other purposes>.
For Informational, Experimental and other future categories of RFC
editor will maintain an appropriate text for <it is published for
other purposes>. For example, with an Informational document this
could read "It is published for informational purposes".
This indicates the RFC number, assigned by the RFC Editor upon
publication of the document. This element is unchanged.
The second paragraph contains category-specific text as follows:
Standards Track: "This document specifies an Internet standards
track protocol for the Internet community. Please see the
"Updates to the RFC" section of this document for information on
where to find the status of this protocol and the availability of
errata for this memo."
Best Current Practice: "This document specifies an Internet Best
Current Practices for the Internet Community. Please see the
"Updates to the RFC" section of this document for information on
where to find the status of this protocol and the availability of
errata for this memo."
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
Experimental: "This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the
Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet
standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement
are requested."
Informational: "This memo provides information for the Internet
community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any
kind. "
The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a
paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has
received. This is defined on a per-stream basis. From now on, these
paragraphs will be defined as part of RFC stream definition.
The following texts may be updated if the stream definitions are
updated, but initial paragraphs for the existing streams are:
IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). "
If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an
additional sentence should be added: "This document represents a
consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review
and has been approved for publication by the IESG."
IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed
valuable to provide for permanent record. This document has been
approved for publication by the IAB and is therefore not a
candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see section
Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
related research and development activities. These results might
not be suitable for deployment. This document has been approved
for publication by the IRSG. It is not a product of the IETF and
is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard;
see section Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the
IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the
<insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual
opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)".
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
Independent Stream: "This document is a contribution to the RFC
Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has
chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no
statement about its value for implementation or deployment. It is
therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see
section Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
3.3. Additional Notes
Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe
additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status
of This Memo".
While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal
of this exercise to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear
to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly
exceptional.
3.4. Other structural information in RFCs
RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor
is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural
element. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted
using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or
may not require documentation in an RFC.
Currently the following structural information is available in RFCs.
Copyright Notice A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78 and an
Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78 and BCP79. The
content of these statements are defined by those BCPs.
ISSN The International Standard Serial Number[ISO3297]: ISSN 2070-
1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as title
regardless of language or country in which published. The ISSN
itself has no significance other than the unique identification of
a serial publication.
Updates to the RFC A reference identifying where more information
about the document can be found. This includes information wether
the RFC has been updated, obsoleted, or clarified, a listing of
possible errata, and information on how to submit errata as
described in [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process].
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
4. Security considerations
This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an
RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause
interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems.
5. IANA considerations
None.
6. RFC Editor Considerations
The RFC Editor is responsibile for maintaining the consistency of the
RFC series. To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual
[insert reference]. In this memo we mention a few explicit
structural elements that the RFC editor needs to maintain. The
conventions for the content and use of all current and future
elements are to be documented in the style manual.
[The rest of this section contains specific instructions towards
editing this document and can be removed before publication]
The documents has two sections, including this one that need to be
removed before publication as an RFC. This one and Appendix B.
This memo introduces a number of modifications that will have to be
implemented in various tools, such as the xml2rfc tool, the nit
tracker and the rfc-erratum portal.
The number "XXXX" is to be replaced with RFC number of this memo.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis]
Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-01 (work in progress),
August 2008.
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
7.2. Informative References
[ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and
documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and
description., "Information and documentation -
International standard serial number (ISSN)", 09 2007.
[RFC0003] Crocker, S., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3,
April 1969.
[RFC2223] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors",
RFC 2223, October 1997.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC3978] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3978, March 2005.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
[I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]
Ginoza, S., Hagens, A., and R. Braden, "RFC Editor
Proposal for Handling RFC Errata",
draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02 (work in progress),
May 2008.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker and John Klensin
who provided background information and inspiration.
Various people have made suggestions that improved the document.
Among them are: Loa Andersson, Lars Eggert, Alfred Hines, Russ
Housley, and David Oran.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
Appendix B. Document Editing Details
[To Be Removed before publication]
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
B.1. version 00->01
Fixed the header so it appropriatly shows that the document updates
RFC 4844, 2223. And added a link to 3932-bis that should appear in
tandem with this publication.
Introduced the "Other structural information in RFCs" section and
moved the ISSN number from the front matter to this section. The
"Other structural information in RFCs" intends to give very rough
guidance providing the RFC editor with sufficient freedom to move
pieces around and edit them to please the eye and mind.
Modified the last sentence 3rd paragraph of the Status of this memo
section for the IRTF Stream in accordance to a suggestion by Aaron
Falk; Indicating that review happend by the IRSG and not indicating
that review did not happen by the IESG.
Introduced the square brackets around the <author affiliation> in the
header. To highlight this is an optional elelment.
The definition of the "Clarifies" relation has been taken out. There
are arguments that introducing the relation needs a bit more thought
and is better done by a seperate document.
Provided the RFC Editor with responsibility to maintain several text
pieces.
In Section 3.2 some modifications were applied to the text.
The <discription> contains the full name of the stream.
RFC2223 and 4844 moved to the informative reference section.
Although I am not sure if those are not normative. Guidance!!!
B.1.1. open issues
Does the RFC Editor wants to supply text with respect to the level of
review in Section 3.2 for the Independent Stream?
Authors' Addresses
Leslie Daigle (editor)
Email: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)
Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
Internet Architecture Board
Email: iab@iab.org
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates October 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Daigle, et al. Expires April 9, 2009 [Page 13]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/