Martin and David,
Is the reason to move the boilerplate to the end of the RFC to help the
reader access more of the technical content of an RFC when they first
click a link or open the PDF?
Some background: The boilerplate used to be placed on the last page of
the RFC per RFC 2223 [1], but during the subsequent revision of RFC 2223
[2] (portions of which were in force before its eventual replacement by
RFC 7322), it was moved to where it is today [3].
The RPC will investigate why the placement changed (as this occurred a
while back, and the archives are not immediately revealing answers) and
whether the boilerplate should be moved. I've opened an issue on
rfc7322bis [4].
Best regards,
Jean
[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2223.html#section-11
[2]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08#section-4
[3] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322#section-4
[4] https://github.com/rfc-editor/draft-rpc-rfc7322bis/issues/53
On 7/24/25 9:46 AM, Jean Mahoney wrote:
Hi all,
The Trust Legal Provisions v5 [1] says the following about the placement
of copyright statements:
6. Text To Be Included in IETF Documents. The following text must be
included in each IETF Document as specified below. The IESG shall
specify the manner and location of such text for Internet-Drafts. The
RFC Editor shall specify the manner and location of such text for RFCs.
The copyright notice specified in 6.b below shall be placed so as to
give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright.
Best regards,
Jean
[1] https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/tlp-5/
On 7/24/25 7:55 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jul 23, 2025, at 22:44, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this is not a policy issue and does not deserve RSWG time. It
should be an RPC issue.
The structure and format of RFCs is absolutely a policy issue. Imagine
if the draft instead said that the Security Considerations section
always had to be before the Introduction.
I also think it's totally wrong. It isn't fluff. By moving this
important information to the end, we would make it even less likely
that people will read it.
We disagree; I kinda like the idea.
Having said that, the proposal is for moving the fluff for both RFCs
and I-Ds to the end of the document. The RSWG cannot (as far as I can
tell) make policy for Internet Drafts.
--Paul Hoffman
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
