On 2/6/13 11:25 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Donald, > At 18:48 06-02-2013, Donald Eastlake wrote: >> I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. The errata does appear in the >> references as >> >> [Errata191] - RFC Errata, Errata ID 191, RFC 4051, http://www.rfc- >> editor.org >> >> I have been told by an Area Director that this it the format that the >> RFC Editor likes. You can certainly find the Errata starting with that >> link and by just linking to the main ref-editor.org web page, it does >> not constrain the other structure of that web site. > > [Errata191] was a normative reference. Referencing errata in an > intended Proposed Standard might be a trivial matter. There are side > effects to that. That may only be apparent in the long term. I hope > that the RFC Editor does not plan to turn Standard Track RFCs into > "living" standards. > The format for the reference is what the RFC Editor suggests, but it hasn't been properly documented yet. There is still open discussion about what the appropriate URL should be which in turn impacts that part of the reference. Having errata as normative references does not seem like a good idea to me, so I'm glad to see it has been shifted to an informative reference. I admit, I am unclear what you mean by turning Standard Track RFCs in to "living" standards; think the process for updating RFCs as new information is developed by creating new RFCs to update or obsolete the older ones is a perfectly reasonable approach. >> OK. I will move the Errata to the Informational references. > > See above. > >> I disagree. I believe acknowledgments are very important and should be >> at the front. I commonly (but not always) put them there in my drafts. >> I am also not aware of any IETF rule prescribing where >> Acknowledgements go in Internet Drafts. It is true that the RFC Editor >> always move them to the end, but that's the way it goes. > > I noticed that you are one of the rare authors who has the > Acknowledgements at the beginning of their document. It was a > practice followed in some of the three-digit RFCs. There isn't any > requirement in the RFC Style Guide which prohibits the > Acknowledgements from being at the front of the document. Since one of the broadest guidelines we work under states "make current RFCs look like the previous ones", we do generally put the Acknowledgements and Contributes towards the end of the document. No, it is not absolutely required but we do think it makes more sense. The guidance on section ordering is something that will be discussed as part of the revised Style Guide. > > I don't know whether it is relevant but John Klensin mentioned this a > few days ago: > > "One might even suggest that one of the reasons early > ARPANET/ Internet developments worked better than the IETF > process of today is that there was wide recognition that it was > necessarily a collaborative effort with many people contributing > ideas and no one wanting to seize credit." > This has been an area of personal confusion for me as I try to understand IETF culture, but I'll leave discussing it to a bar BoF or something. -Heather Flanagan, RSE > Section 5 mentions that "This document requires no IANA actions". > However, there is another paragraph in the IANA Considerations section > which is not even actionable by IANA folks. I am not sure whether the > text should go into that > section. > > In Section 1: > > "Note that raising XML Digital Signature to Draft Standard [RFC3275] > in the IETF required removal of any algorithms for which there was > not demonstrated interoperability from the Proposed Standard > document. This required removal of the Minimal Canonicalization > algorithm, in which there appears to be continued interest. The URI > for Minimal Canonicalization was included in [RFC4051] and is > included here." > > That was the historic rationale for the different levels in the > Standards Track. Rumor has it that although the rationale was > forgotten, whether intentionally or not, the "MUST" wars continued. > Dave Crocker once raised the question of complexity of a > specification. Advancement along the Standards could have been used > to make a specification less complex by trimming stuff which has not > been implemented (see quoted text above). > > In Section 2.1.1: > > > "The content of the DigestValue element shall be the base64 [RFC2045] > encoding of this bit string viewed as a 16-octet octet stream." > > RFC 4648 could be reference instead of RFC 2045. > > Regards, > -sm > >