GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7841

Internet Architecture Board (IAB) J. Halpern, Ed. Request for Comments: 7841 L. Daigle, Ed. Obsoletes: 5741 O. Kolkman, Ed. Category: Informational May 2016 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.  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 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.  It represents the consensus of the
 Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  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/rfc7841.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2016 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.

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
 2.  RFC Streams and Internet Standards  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 3.  RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.1.  The Title Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.2.  The Status of This Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.3.  Paragraph 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.4.  Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.5.  Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.6.  Noteworthy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 4.  Additional Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 5.  Other Structural Information in RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
 7.  RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
 8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
 Appendix A.  Initial Formatting Details . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   A.1.  RFC Title Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   A.2.  Constructing a "Status of This Memo" Section  . . . . . .  10
     A.2.1.  First Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.2.2.  Second Paragraph  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.2.3.  Third Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 IAB Members at Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

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

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

 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 the 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.  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], [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
 (https://www.iab.org/documents/headers-boilerplate).

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

 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.  The initial
 text to be used in that web page is included in Appendix A.

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
    [RFC3].  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
  • 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

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

    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.

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 a review for clarity by the IAB
 and RFC Series Editor.

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.

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

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 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 [ERRATA].  The
 exact wording and URL is subject to change (at the RFC Editor's
 discretion), but the 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>.

3.6. 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, for example, Historic.  This cannot be
 reflected in the document itself and will need be reflected in the
 information referred to in Section 5.

4. Additional Notes

 Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe
 additional notes that will appear as labeled notes after the
 "Abstract".
 This is no longer a common feature of recent RFCs.  It is the goal of
 this document to continue to ensure that the overall RFC structure is
 adequately clear so that such notes are unnecessary or (at least)
 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 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.

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

 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. RFC Editor Considerations

 The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the
 RFC series.  To that end, the RFC Editor maintains an "RFC Style
 Guide" [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 documented
 in the style guide.
 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, for example, indices
 and interfaces.

8. References

8.1. 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>.

8.2. 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.

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

 [RFC3]     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>.
 [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>.
 [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>.
 [ERRATA]   Hagens, A., Ginoza, S., and R. Braden, "RFC Editor
            Proposal for Handling RFC Errata", Work in Progress,
            draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02, May 2008.
 [BCP78]    Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
            Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
            November 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>.

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

 [BCP79]    Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
            Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, DOI 10.17487/RFC3979, March
            2005.
            Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure
            Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4879, April 2007.
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

Appendix A. Initial Formatting Details

 This section contains the text the IAB used to initially populate the
 web page used to maintain the list of required verbiage.

A.1. RFC Title Page Header

 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, the header for RFC 6410 appears as follows:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Housley Request for Comments: 6410 Vigil Security BCP: 9 D. Crocker Updates: 2026 Brandenburg InternetWorking Category: Best Current Practice E. Burger ISSN: 2070-1721 Georgetown University

                                                          October 2011

A.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, the following sections are
 authoritative.

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

A.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 Section 3.3 of
 RFC 7841.
 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>.  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."

A.2.2. Second Paragraph

 See Section 3.4 of RFC 7841.
 The second 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:
 Experimental:  "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
    the Internet community."
 Historic:  "This document defines a Historic Document for the
    Internet community."

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

 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)."
 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 7841."

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

 For IETF stream documents, a similar reference is added: "Further
 information on (BCPs or Internet Standards) is available in Section 2
 of RFC 7841." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all
 documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
 Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC 7841." for all other
 categories.

A.2.3. Third Paragraph

 See Section 3.5 of RFC 7841.

IAB Members at Time of Approval

 The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in
 alphabetical order):
    Jari Arkko
    Mary Barnes
    Marc Blanchet
    Ralph Droms
    Ted Hardie
    Joe Hildebrand
    Russ Housley
    Erik Nordmark
    Robert Sparks
    Andrew Sullivan
    Dave Thaler
    Brian Trammell
    Suzanne Woolf

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.

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 7841 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates May 2016

Authors' Addresses

 Joel M. Halpern (editor)
 Email: jmh@joelhalpern.com
 Leslie Daigle (editor)
 Email: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
 Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)
 Email: kolkman@isoc.org

Halpern, et al. Informational [Page 14]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7841.txt · Last modified: 2016/05/25 23:32 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki