--On Thursday, March 05, 2009 05:44 -0800 "Hallam-Baker,
Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I doubt that this is a huge tool-builder issue. Lets not go
> looking for problems.
>
> I think moving the boilerplate is a good idea, particularly
> for people who are still reading the TXT versions of the docs.
>
> The only piece I would keep on the front page is the bit that
> says where comments should go.
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.
While its intent is to eliminate the vast majority of "IESG
Notes", whatever notes of that type remain are likely to contain
significant information.
This is important, at least for me, because, while I'd lose no
sleep over seeing the Copyright and IPR notices moved to the end
(if the Trustees conclude, on the advice of Counsel, that doing
so would be ok), my personal belief at the moment is that
burying the Status information, especially in its newer form,
would be a mistake.
All of that material traditionally appears before the Abstract.
The combination of it with the copyright and IPR notices are
what often forces the Abstract partially or completely to Page
2. Removing any component of that front-matter would typically
get the Abstract back onto Page 1, at least if the number of
listed authors and affiliations was well under the maximum.
Despite the apparent general agreement that moving material
would be a good idea, I am less convinced about the more
substantive (i.e., variable on a per-document or per-stream
basis) material and can interpret various of the comments as:
(i) Recommending moving the Copyright and IPR notices to the end
and leaving everything else alone.
(ii) Recommending moving all of the Status and IPR material that
now falls between the document title lines and the Abstract.
(iii) Recommending moving the "Status" material but not the IPR
material (note that, under 5378 and especially if the workaround
text is not added, the IPR material is a lot shorter than it
used to be).
And, while I haven't heard it suggested in anything I've read,
(iv) Changing the order of material to
Abstract
Status
Copyright
or
Abstract
Copyright
Status
or
Abstract
Status
(Copyright and IPR statements at the end)
Those who want to see the Status information moved should
probably immediately bring that to the attention of the IAB
because it might require some conceptual changes to the "On RFC
Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates" document referenced above,
not just moving text around.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf