Internet DRAFT - draft-iab-rfc5741bis
draft-iab-rfc5741bis
Network Working Group J. Halpern, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Obsoletes: 5741 (if approved) L. Daigle, Ed.
Intended status: Informational
Expires: August 5, 2016 O. Kolkman, Ed.
Internet Society
Internet Architecture Board
(IAB)
February 2, 2016
On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
draft-iab-rfc5741bis-02
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. This document obsoletes RFC 5741, moving
detailed content to an IAB web page and preparing for more flexible
output formats.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Paragraph 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Other structural information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. IAB members at time of approval . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix C. Initial Formating Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C.1. RFC Title Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C.2. Constructing a "Status of this Memo" Section . . . . . . 11
C.2.1. First Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C.2.2. Second Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
C.2.3. Third Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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.
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
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. It describes the content required for each
kind of information. Details of exact textual and layout
requirements are left to a web page maintained by the IAB, with due
consultation with the community, for ease of maintenance. This
document obsoletes [RFC5741].
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
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.
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
Refer to [RFC2026], [RFC5742], [RFC4844], [RFC6410], and [RFC7127]
and their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC
streams.
3. RFC Structural Elements
This section describes the elements that are commonly found in RFCs
published today. This document specifies information that is
required in these publications. Exact specification of the textual
values required therein are provided by an IAB web page
(URL to be provided during AUTH48).
As noted above, this web page is maintained by the IAB with due
consultation with the community. Following such consultation, if the
IAB decides to make any changes to this material, the changes will be
announced in a similar fashion to other IAB statements. Initial
proposed text to be used in that web page is included in Appendix C.
3.1. The title page header
The information at the front of the RFC includes the name and
affiliation of the authors as well as the RFC publication month and
year.
There is a set of additional information that is needed at the front
of the RFC. Historically, this has been presented with the
information below in a left hand column, and the author related
information described above in the right.
<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
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
* Independent Submission
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] and STDs [RFC1311]. 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.
[<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" [RFC7322].
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.
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.
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
3.3. Paragraph 1
The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a
single sentence, clearly standing out. The sentence will clearly
identify the stream-specific status of the document. The text to be
used is defined by the stream, with IAB and RFC Series Editor review
for clarity.
3.4. Paragraph 2
The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will 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. The IAB defines a
specific structure defined to ensure there is clarity about review
processes and document types.
3.5. 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"
3.6. 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 5.
4. Additional Notes
Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe
additional notes that will appear as labelled notes after the "Status
of This Memo".
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
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.
5. Other structural information in RFCs
RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor
is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural
elements. 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 [ISO.3297.2007]: 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.
6. 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.
7. IANA considerations
None.
8. 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
[RFC7322]. 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
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
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]
This section of the document needs to be removed before publication.
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.
In section Section 5: For the final publication, it should be
warranted that the ISSN is *not* split by a line break, for clarity.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
[RFC5742] Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
BCP 92, RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5742>.
9.2. Informative References
[ISO.3297.2007]
Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and
documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and
description., "Information and documentation -
International standard serial number (ISSN)", ISO Standard
3297, 09 2007.
[RFC0003] Crocker, S., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0003, April 1969,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3>.
[RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1311>.
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.
[RFC3979] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, DOI 10.17487/RFC3979, March
2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3979>.
[RFC4749] Sollaud, A., "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio
Codec", RFC 4749, DOI 10.17487/RFC4749, October 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4749>.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
July 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5143, February 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5143>.
[RFC5378] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.
[RFC5741] Daigle, L., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Streams,
Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 5741,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5741, December 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5741>.
[RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410>.
[RFC7127] Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization
of Proposed Standards", BCP 9, RFC 7127,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7127, January 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7127>.
[RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
[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.
[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]
Appendix A. IAB members at time of approval
The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in
alphabetical order):
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza,
and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration.
Thanks to the members of the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)
for assistance and review: Alexey Melnikov, Nevil Brownlee, Bob
Hinden, Sarah Banks, Robert Sparks, Tony Hansen, and Joe Hildebrand.
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 C. Initial Formating Details
This section provides suggested starting text for the use of the IAB
in order to simplify populating the web page to be used to maintain
the list of required verbiage.
C.1. RFC Title Page Header
An RFC title page header can be described as follows:
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.2. Constructing a "Status of this Memo" Section
The following sections describe mandated text for use in specific
parts of the "Status of this Memo" portion of an RFC. For
convenience, the RFC Editor maintains example expansions of all
permutations of the paragraphs described in this document (at the
time of publication, at http://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/status-
memos.txt). When in conflict, these following sections are
authoritative.
C.2.1. First Paragraph
The following are the approved texts for use in the first paragraph
of the "Status of this Memo" portion of an RFC. See RFCXXXX section
3.3.
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>."
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
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:
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."
C.2.2. Second Paragraph
See RFCXXXX section 3.4.
The second 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 and recorded
by the IAB on the web page..
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, this
additional text 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."
If the document represents IAB consensus, this additional text
should be added: "It represents the consensus of the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB)."
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
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 Submission 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.
C.2.3. Third Paragraph
See RFCXXXX section 3.5.
Authors' Addresses
Joel M. Halpern (editor)
Email: jmh@joelhalpern.com
Leslie Daigle (editor)
Email: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates February 2016
Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)
Internet Society
Email: kolkman@isoc.org
Internet Architecture Board
Email: iab@iab.org
Halpern, et al. Expires August 5, 2016 [Page 14]
