Scott Lawrence wrote:
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 13:14 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
I'd like to be sure that the people proposing this are all
actually proposing the same thing... versus the possibility that
they have different things in mind.
The proposed IAB document,
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates, involves, among other
things, a significant restructuring of the "status of this memo"
material that will change it from roughly static boilerplate to
a few paragraphs that actually contain a lot of information
about streams, origins, approval mechanisms, level of consensus,
etc.
I strongly support Margaret's proposal, and to be clear:
I think that _all_ the required status, process, and boilerplate
material in both RFCs and Internet Drafts should be moved to some
standard section at the end, with at most a one line comment _after_ the
Abstract directing the uninitiated reader to that material.
This is a trivial change for the generation tools to make - at worst it
will make one generation of diffs slightly more difficult (and I'd be
happy to trade one generation of poor diffs for this, so for me just
don't worry about fixing the diff tools).
warning: the definition of "end" has proved problematic in the past;
there was rejoicing when the current templates removed all the
boilerplate to be placed "at the end".
I kind of like page 2 (the "inner cover" when you print it in duplex),
but since (I think) most people read RFCs online, it may not be far
enough out of the way for most.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
