GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5741

Internet Architecture Board (IAB) L. Daigle, Ed. Request for Comments: 5741 O. Kolkman, Ed. Updates: 2223, 4844 For the IAB Category: Informational December 2009 ISSN: 2070-1721

               RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates

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.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 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 5741.
 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/info/rfc5741.

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
 (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 BSD License.

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 2.  RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 3.  RFC Structural Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.1.  The Title Page Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.2.  The Status of this Memo  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.1.  Paragraph 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.2.  Paragraph 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     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.  RFC Editor Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 Appendix A.  Some Example 'Status of This Memo' Boilerplates . . . 12
   A.1.  IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   A.2.  IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . 12
   A.3.  IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   A.4.  IAB Informational  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   A.5.  IRTF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   A.6.  Independent Submission Informational . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 Appendix B.  IAB Members at Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . 15
 Appendix C.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

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 labeling 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

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

 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.  The IETF also produces
 non-Standards-Track documents (Informational, Experimental, and
 Historic).  All documents published as part of the IETF Stream are
 reviewed by the appropriate IETF bodies.
 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.
 Refer to [RFC2026], [RFC5742], 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

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

 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

————————————————————————

 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:

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

  • Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
  • Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
  • Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
  • 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], 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.
 [<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].  Alternatives 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-

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

 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>.  Suggested 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."

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.  Suggested
 initial text, for current streams, is provided below.
 The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the initial
 document category; when a document is Experimental or Historic, the
 second paragraph opens with:

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

 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 suggested
 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."
 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

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

       "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
    5741."
 For IETF stream documents, a similar reference is added for BCP and
 Standards Track documents:
    "Further information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available
    in Section 2 of RFC 5741."
 For all other categories:
    "Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any
    level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741."

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 about 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 [RFC-ERRATA].
 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/info/rfc<rfc-no>."

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

3.2.4. Noteworthy

 Note that the text 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
 referred to in Section 3.2.3.

3.3. Additional Notes

 Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe
 additional notes that will appear as labeled 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
 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 BCP 78 [BCP78] and an
    Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP 78 and BCP 79
    [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. Informational [Page 9] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

5. 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.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

 [RFC2026]     Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
               Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
 [RFC5742]     Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
               Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",
               BCP 92, RFC 5742, December 2009.

6.2. 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.

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

 [RFC4844]     Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
               Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
 [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.
 [RFC-ERRATA]  Hagens, A., Ginoza, S., and R. Braden, "RFC Editor
               Proposal for Handling RFC Errata", Work in Progress,
               May 2008.
 [BCP78]       Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
               Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78,
               RFC 5378, November 2008.
 [BCP79]       Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual
               Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979,
               April 2007.
               Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party
               Disclosure Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879,
               April 2007.
 [RFC-style]   RFC Editor, "RFC Style Guide",
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html>.

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of This Memo' Boilerplates

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 the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by
 the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further
 information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of
 RFC 5741.
 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/info/rfc<rfc-no>.

————————————————————————

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 is
 published for examination, experimental implementation, and
 evaluation.
 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
 community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
 Task Force (IETF).  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).  Not
 all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
 Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 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/info/rfc<rfc-no>.

————————————————————————

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

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 is
 published for examination, experimental implementation, and
 evaluation.
 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 (IESG).  Not all documents
 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 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/info/rfc<rfc-no>.

————————————————————————

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 is
 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 5741.
 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/info/rfc<rfc-no>.

————————————————————————

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

A.5. IRTF Experimental, No Consensus Call

 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 is
 published for examination, experimental implementation, and
 evaluation.
 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 <insert_name> Research Group
 of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for
 publication by the IRSG are not a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 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/info/rfc<rfc-no>.

————————————————————————

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

A.6. Independent Submission Informational

 The boilerplate for an Informational document that has been produced
 by the Independent Submission stream.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 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.  Documents approved for
 publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of
 Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 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/info/rfc<rfc-no>.

————————————————————————

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].

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009

Authors' Addresses

 Leslie Daigle (editor)
 EMail: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com
 Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)
 EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
 Internet Architecture Board
 EMail: iab@iab.org

Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 16]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5741.txt · Last modified: 2009/12/24 17:18 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki