[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: October 25, 2009                                 April 23, 2009


               On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
               draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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 October 25, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

   RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title



Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


   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.


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
       3.2.1.  Paragraph 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.2.  Paragraph 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.3.  Paragraph 3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.4.  Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.4.  Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  RFC Editor Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.  Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates . . . 12
     A.1.  IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     A.2.  IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . 13
     A.3.  IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     A.4.  IAB Informational  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     A.5.  IRTF Experimental  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Appendix B.  IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix C.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix D.  Document Editing Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     D.1.  version 00->01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     D.2.  version 01->02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     D.3.  version 02->03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     D.4.  version 03->04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     D.5.  version 04->05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     D.6.  version 05->06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     D.7.  version 06->07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     D.8.  version 07->08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17







Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


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 Standards-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 October 25, 2009                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


   generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security,
   congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
   protocols.  They have also not been subject to approval by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), 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 the IETF process and RFC
   streams.


3.  RFC Structural Elements

3.1.  The title page header

   This section describes the elements that are commonly found in RFCs
   published today.  For the sake of clarity, this document specifies
   the elements precisely as a specification.  However, this is not
   intended to specify a single, static format.  Details of formatting
   are decided by the RFC Editor.  Substantive changes to the header and
   boilerplate structure and content may be undertaken in the future,
   and are subject to general oversight and review by the IAB.

   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

------------------------------------------------------------------------




Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


   The right column contains author name and affiliation information as
   well as the RFC publication month.  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:

   <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 [RFC2026], STDs [RFC1311], and FYIs [RFC1150].
      These subseries numbers may appear in several RFCs.  For example,
      when a new RFC obsoletes or 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.







Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


   [<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" [RFC2223].
      Variants like "Obsoleted by" are also used (e.g in [RFC5143]).
      Other types of relationships may be defined by the RFC Editor and
      may appear in future RFCs.

   Category: <category>  This indicates the initial 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.

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.

   The "Status of This Memo" will start with a single sentence
   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.

3.2.1.  Paragraph 1

   The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a
   single sentence, clearly standing out.  It depends on the category of
   the document.

   For 'Standards Track' documents:  "This is an Internet Standards
      Track document."

   For 'Best Current Practices' documents:  "This memo documents an
      Internet Best Current Practice."

   For other categories  "This document is not an Internet Standards
      Track specification; <it is published for other purposes>."

   For Informational, Experimental, Historic and future categories of
   RFCs, the RFC editor will maintain an appropriate text for <it is
   published for other purposes>.  Initial values are:






Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


   Informational:   "it is published for informational purposes."

   Historic:   "it is published for the historical record."

   Experimental:   "it is published for examination, experimental
      implementation, and evaluation."

3.2.2.  Paragraph 2

   The second 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, subject to general
   review and oversight by the RFC Editor and IAB.  There is a specific
   structure defined here to ensure there is clarity about review
   processes and document types.  These paragraphs will need to be
   defined and maintained as part of RFC stream definitions.  Initial
   text, for current streams, is provided below.

   The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial
   document category, as follows: when a document is Experimental or
   Historic the second paragraph opens with:

   Experimental:  "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
      the Internet community."

   Historic:  "This document defines a Historic Document for the
      Internet community."

   The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values
   and may be updated by stream definition document updates.

   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: "It represents the consensus
      of the IETF community.  It has received public review and has been
      approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
      Group (IESG)."  If there has not been such a consensus call then
      this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the
      Internet Engineering Steering Group (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."






Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


   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."

      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)".

   Independent Stream:  "This 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.

   For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is
   added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for
   publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB",
   "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."

   For IETF stream documents a similar reference is added: "Further
   information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available in Section 2
   of RFC XXXX." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all
   documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of
   Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX." for all other
   categories.

3.2.3.  Paragraph 3

   The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant
   information can be found.  This information may include, subject to
   the RFC Editor's discretion, information whether the RFC has been
   updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a listing of possible errata,
   information about how to provide feedback and suggestion, and
   information on how to submit errata as described in
   [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process].  The exact wording and URL is
   subject to change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text
   is:

   "Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/<static-path>/rfc<rfc-no>.html"






Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


3.2.4.  Noteworthy

   Note that the texts in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate
   the initial status of a document.  During their lifetime documents
   can change status to e.g.  Historic.  This cannot be reflected in the
   document itself and will need be reflected in the information refered
   to in Section 3.4.

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 document 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 or is
   being considered for inclusion in RFCs:

   Copyright Notice  A copyright notice with a reference to BCP78
      [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP78
      and BCP79 [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 it is published.  The
      ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique
      identification of a serial publication.


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.




Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


5.  IANA considerations

   None.


6.  RFC Editor Considerations

   The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the
   RFC series.  To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual
   [RFC-style].  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.

   Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one
   method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated.  The RFC
   editor is encouraged to add such indication in e.g. indices and
   interfaces.

   [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 D.

   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.

   References [RFC-style], [BCP78] and [BCP79] have been constructed.
   Please bring these in line with RFC Editorial conventions.

   In section Section 3.4: For the final publication, it should be
   warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity.

   The URL in Appendix A should be replaced with whatever the RFC Editor
   decides upon.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.




Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


   [I-D.housley-iesg-rfc3932bis]
              Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
              Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
              draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06 (work in progress),
              November 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 .

    [RFC1311]   Postel, J. , "Introduction to the STD Notes" , RFC 1311
              , March 1992 .

    [RFC1150]   Malkin, G.  and J. Reynolds , "FYI on FYI: Introduction
              to the FYI Notes" , RFC 1150 , March 1990 .

    [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 .

    [RFC3979]   Bradner, S. , "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
              Technology" , BCP 79 , RFC 3979 , March 2005 .

    [RFC4844]   Daigle, L.  and Internet Architecture Board , "The RFC
              Series and RFC Editor" , RFC 4844 , July 2007 .

    [RFC4749]   Sollaud, A. , "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio
              Codec" , RFC 4749 , October 2006 .

    [RFC5143]   Malis, A. , Brayley, J. , Shirron, J. , Martini, L. ,
              and S. Vogelsang , "Synchronous Optical Network/
              Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit
              Emulation Service over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation" ,
              RFC 5143 , February 2008 .

    [RFC5378]   Bradner, S.  and J. Contreras , "Rights Contributors
              Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 , RFC 5378 ,
              November 2008 .

    [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]



Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


               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 .

    [BCP78]     Bradner, S., Ed.  and J. Contreras, Ed. , "Rights
              Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust" , BCP 78 ,
              November 2008 .

              At the moment of publication:[RFC5378]

   [BCP79]    Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual
              Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007.

              At the moment of publication:[RFC3979]and[RFC4749]

   [RFC-style]
              RFC Editor, "RFC Style Guide",
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html>.


Appendix A.  Some Example 'Status of this Memo' boilerplates

   [Editor note: The URLs used in this example are examples.]

A.1.  IETF Standards Track

   The boilerplate for a Standards Track document that (by definition)
   has been subject to an IETF consensus call.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo

    This is an Internet Standards Track document.

    This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
    (IETF).  It represents a consensus of the IETF community.  It has
    received public review and has been approved for publication by
    the Internet Engineering Steering Group. Further information on
    the Internet Standards Track is available in Section 2 of RFC
    XXXX."

    Information about the current status of this document,  any
    errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------




Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


A.2.  IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call

   The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been subject to
   an IETF consensus call.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo

    This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
    has been published for Experimental purposes.

    This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
    community.  Discussion and suggestions for improvement are
    requested.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF).  It represents a consensus of the IETF
    community.  It has received public review and has been approved
    for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group
    (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidate for
    any level of Internet Standards see Section 2 of RFC XXXX.

    Information about the current status of this document,  any
    errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.3.  IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call

   The boilerplate for an Experimental document that not has been
   subject to an IETF consensus call.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo

    This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
    has been published for Experimental purposes.

    This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
    community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF). It has been approved for publication by the
    Internet Engineering Steering Group.  Not all documents approved
    by the IESG are candidate for any level of Internet Standards see
    Section 2 of RFC XXXX.

    Information about the current status of this document,  any
    errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------




Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


A.4.  IAB Informational

   The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo

    This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
    has been published for Informational purposes.

    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. Documents approved for
    publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of
    Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."

    Information about the current status of this document,  any
    errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.5.  IRTF Experimental

   The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been produced
   by the IRTF and for which there was no RG consensus.  This variation
   is the most verbose boilerplate in the current set.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of this Memo

    This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it
    has been published for Experimental purposes.

    This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
    community. 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 RFC represents the individual
    opinion(s) of one or more members of the BLAFOO Research Group of
    the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for
    publication by the IRTF are not a candidate for any level of
    Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC XXXX."

    Information about the current status of this document,  any
    errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc0000.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------




Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


Appendix B.  IAB members at time of approval

   The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in
   alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart
   Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba,
   Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave
   Thaler, and Lixia Zhang.  In addition, the IAB included two ex-
   officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive
   Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.


Appendix C.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza,
   and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration.

   Various people have made suggestions that improved the document.
   Among them are: Lars Eggert, Alfred Hoenes, and Joe Touch.

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].


Appendix D.  Document Editing Details

   [To Be Removed before publication]

   $Id: headers-boilerplates.xml 83 2009-04-23 06:35:05Z olaf $

D.1.  version 00->01

   Fixed the header so it appropriately 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 happened 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 element.




Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


   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 separate document.

   Provided the RFC Editor with responsibility to maintain several text
   pieces.

   In Section 3.2 some modifications were applied to the text.

   The <description> 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!!!

D.2.  version 01->02

   Fixed some editorial nits and missing references.

   Clarified that the status and category are initial.

   Added boilerplate text for documents that are initially published as
   Historic.

   Added members of IAB, and removed those members from acknowledgements

   Added References to BCP78 and BCP79.  The exact formatting of those
   references may need to be done by the RFC editor.

   Added text to recognize occurrences of variations of "Obsolete" and
   "Update"

D.3.  version 02->03

   Stray language in the "IAB members at time of approval" section
   removed.

D.4.  version 03->04

   Addressed the minor nit from Brian Carpenter.

   Reference to style guide stet to styleguide.html

D.5.  version 04->05

   References updated to reflect BCP78 being updated

   Submitted under new boilerplate




Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


   Rewording of boilerplate material based on rfc-interest discussion
   starting with http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/
   2008-December/001078.html

   Added examples in Appendix A

D.6.  version 05->06

   Nits corrected

   Fixede Boilerplate for IETF stream document without IETF consensus.

   Corruption of examples due to XML bug corrected

D.7.  version 06->07

   Nits corrected

   Fixed inconsistency: Request for feedback only appeared in the
   Experimental category, moved this to the "Update to this memo
   section"

   Changed the content of the 3rd paragraph of document status to be a
   static (per stream) pointer to finding more information about the
   document status, errata, and providing feedback.  This was to address
   the concern of having dynamic (per-document) text in the boilerplate,
   if this "updates" section was document specific.

D.8.  version 07->08

   Introduced language to clarify that the RFC Editor is responsible for
   details with respect to style and formatting.


Authors' Addresses

   Leslie Daigle (editor)

   Email: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com


   Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)

   Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl







Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates         April 2009


   Internet Architecture Board

   Email: iab@iab.org
















































Daigle, et al.          Expires October 25, 2009               [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.114, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/