Check the wording in the TLP. Eliot
> On 24 Jul 2025, at 11:31, Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote: > > Thanks Jean. > > I had observed the same change, but was also unable to find why. > > The point is exactly as you say, this stuff is just a barrier to getting at > content, especially on a small screen. > >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, at 11:24, Jean Mahoney wrote: >> 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 > > -- > rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org > -- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
