Let's just get this published and go with what we have even if it does not necessarily read real pretty. The text of the strings can be updated at a later point by a modification of the RFC Style Guide if there are enough complaints about how the text looks. Given that it is boilerplate, I personally don't care that it does not flow. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: rfc-interest-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rfc-interest- > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:02 AM > To: IETF discussion list; rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xml2rfc > Subject: [rfc-i] Important: do not publish "draft-iab-streams-headers- > boilerplates-08" as is! > > Hi, > > I just created five test cases representing the appendices A.1 to A.5. > Turns out that the text in the examples is not in sync with the > definitions in Section 3 (see, for instance, > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/samples/sample.ipr.rfc.ha > b.a2.test.xhtml>). > > Best regards, Julian > > Julian Reschke wrote: > > Julian Reschke wrote: > >> > >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates- > 08#section-3.2.3> > >> says: > >> > >> "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>.html" > >> > >> Can we please recommend *not* to put a file extension into the URL? > >> > >> BR, Julian > >> ... > > > > Hi, > > > > in the meantime I have finished a prototype implementation of the new > > boilerplate in rfc2629.xslt (*not* xml2rfc!). The implementation is > > available from <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt.zip>, > and > > requires the use of two new extension Processing Instructions to > enable > > the new boilerplate: > > > > <?rfc-ext h-a-b="yes"?> > > <?rfc-ext consensus="no"?> > > > > (where the first enables the new format, while the second provides > the > > information about whether there was consensus, something the current > > xml2rfc format doesn't provide). > > > > I haven't found any problems in addition to what was reported before, > > except for a trailing dot in one of the boilerplate statements, and > > cases of repeating sentence beginnings -- maybe all of this can be > fixed > > during AUTH48 (although I'd prefer to see this in a new draft for > > community review). > > > > For the record, here's a complete summary: > > > > -- snip -- > > 3.1. The title page header > > > > <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: > > > > * Internet Engineering Task Force > > > > * Internet Architecture Board > > > > * Internet Research Task Force > > > > * Independent > > > > JRE: as discussed earlier: should this be "Independent Submission" > > instead of "Independent"? > > > > [<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]. > > 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. > > > > JRE: "Obsoleted By" is not a variant of "Obsoletes" or "Updates". > > > > 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. Initial > > text, for current streams, is provided below. > > > > The paragraph may include some text that is specific to the > initial > > document category, as follows: 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." > > > > JRE: the way paragraph 2 is generated, we end up with instances where > > the 1st and 2nd sentence both start with "This document". This is > ugly. > > Is it too late to fix this? > > > > 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)". > > > > JRE: trailing dot missing in 2nd variant. > > > > > > 3.2.3. Paragraph 3 > > > > "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>.html" > > > > JRE: please do not bake a file extension into the permanent URL (see > also > > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg59415.html>) > > > > -- snip -- > > > > Best regards, Julian > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf