On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 13:14 -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > 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. I strongly support Margaret's proposal, and to be clear: I think that _all_ the required status, process, and boilerplate material in both RFCs and Internet Drafts should be moved to some standard section at the end, with at most a one line comment _after_ the Abstract directing the uninitiated reader to that material. This is a trivial change for the generation tools to make - at worst it will make one generation of diffs slightly more difficult (and I'd be happy to trade one generation of poor diffs for this, so for me just don't worry about fixing the diff tools). _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf