Hi, [snipping out some useful points] We had considered what you suggest below, and indeed I typed it up in a recent email to Yaron before deleting it again. Yes, we could do what you suggest, but as you found, it requires a kind of meta-note to the RFC Editor that starts to get messy and confusing. If you feel strongly that something needs to be included in the boilerplate we can look again. but since it is only suggested rather than mandated boilerplate, maybe it is enough to ask for a note to be added rather than including the text of the note in the boilerplate? A > And then a small point in 2.1: > > Authors are requested to add a note to the RFC Editor at the top of > this section, advising the Editor to remove the entire section before > publication, as well as the reference to [RFC Editor: replace by a > reference to this document]. > > Why not include that directly in the recommended boilerplate?: > > OLD > The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation > Status section: > > This section records the status of known implementations of the > protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of > this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC > Editor: replace by a reference to this document]. According to > [RFC Editor: replace by a reference to this document], "this will > allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to > documents that have the benefit of running code and potentially > reward the documented protocols by treating the documents with > implementations preferentially". Furthermore, "It is up to the > individual working groups to use this information as they see > fit". > > NEW > The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation > Status section: > > This section records the status of known implementations of the > protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of > this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in > [RFCXXXX]. According to [RFCXXXX], "This will allow reviewers > and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that > have the benefit of running code, by considering the running code > as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has > made the implemented protocols more mature." Furthermore, "It is > up to the individual working groups to use this information as they > see fit". > > [RFC Editor: Please remove this entire section and the reference > to RFCXXXX.] > > [RFC Editor: The "RFC Editor" note above is there as example text. > Please do not take action on it, and leave it in the document. Instead, > replace "RFCXXXX" by a reference to this document, and remove this > note.] > > END