Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                        J. Halpern, Ed.Request for Comments: 7841                                L. Daigle, Ed.Obsoletes:5741                                          O. Kolkman, Ed.Category: Informational                                         May 2016ISSN: 2070-1721RFC Streams, Headers, and BoilerplatesAbstract   RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title   page header, standard boilerplates, and copyright/IPR statements.   This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect   current usage and requirements of RFC publication.  In particular,   this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source   of RFC creation and review.  This document obsoletesRFC 5741, moving   detailed content to an IAB web page and preparing for more flexible   output formats.Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for informational purposes.   This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)   and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to   provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of the   Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for   publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet   Standard; seeSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7841.Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of   publication of this document.  Please review these documents   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect   to this document.Halpern, et al.               Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016Table of Contents1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  RFC Streams and Internet Standards  . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.  RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.1.  The Title Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43.2.  The Status of This Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.3.  Paragraph 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.4.  Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.5.  Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63.6.  Noteworthy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64.  Additional Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65.  Other Structural Information in RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . . .66.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77.  RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Appendix A.  Initial Formatting Details . . . . . . . . . . . . .10A.1.  RFC Title Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10A.2.  Constructing a "Status of This Memo" Section  . . . . . .10A.2.1.  First Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11A.2.2.  Second Paragraph  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11A.2.3.  Third Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13   IAB Members at Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141.  Introduction   Previously, RFCs (e.g., [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements   that were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons.  They   also contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of   the document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the   document interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents.   As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been   increasing concern over appropriate labeling of the publications to   make clear the status of each RFC and the status of the work it   describes.  Chiefly, there is a requirement that RFCs published as   part of the IETF's review process not be easily confused with RFCs   that may have had a very different review and approval process.   Various adjustments have been made over the years, including evolving   text of "Notes" included in the published RFC.   With the definition of the different RFC streams [RFC4844], it is   appropriate to formalize the definition of the various pieces of   standard RFC boilerplate and introduce some adjustments to ensureHalpern, et al.               Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016   better clarity of expression of document status, aligned with the   review and approval processes defined for each stream.   This memo identifies and describes the common elements of RFC   boilerplate structure.  It describes the content required for each   kind of information.  Details of the exact textual and layout   requirements are left to a web page maintained by the IAB, with due   consultation with the community, for ease of maintenance.  This   document obsoletes [RFC5741].   The changes introduced by this memo should be implemented as soon as   practically possible after the document has been approved for   publication.2.  RFC Streams and Internet Standards   Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet Standards-   related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet   Standards-related documents.   The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards   Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing,   and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs.  The IETF also produces   non-Standards-Track documents (Informational, Experimental, and   Historic).  All documents published as part of the IETF Stream are   reviewed by the appropriate IETF bodies.   Documents published in streams other than the IETF stream are not   generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security,   congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed   protocols.  They have also not been subject to approval by the   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide   last call.  Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF   stream documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any   purpose.   Refer to [RFC2026], [RFC5742], [RFC4844], [RFC6410], and [RFC7127]   and their successors for current details of the IETF process and RFC   streams.3.  RFC Structural Elements   This section describes the elements that are commonly found in RFCs   published today.  This document specifies information that is   required in these publications.  Exact specification of the textual   values required therein are provided by an IAB web page   (https://www.iab.org/documents/headers-boilerplate).Halpern, et al.               Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016   As noted above, this web page is maintained by the IAB with due   consultation with the community.  Following such consultation, if the   IAB decides to make any changes to this material, the changes will be   announced in a similar fashion to other IAB statements.  The initial   text to be used in that web page is included inAppendix A.3.1.  The Title Page Header   The information at the front of the RFC includes the name and   affiliation of the authors as well as the RFC publication month and   year.   There is a set of additional information that is needed at the front   of the RFC.  Historically, this has been presented with the   information below in a left hand column, and the author-related   information described above in the right.   <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      [RFC3].  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 Submission   Request for Comments:  <RFC number>  This indicates the RFC number,      assigned by the RFC Editor upon publication of the document.  This      element is unchanged.   <subseries ID> <subseries number>  Some document categories are also      labeled as a subseries of RFCs.  These elements appear as      appropriate for such categories, indicating the subseries and the      documents number within that series.  Currently, there are      subseries for BCPs [RFC2026] and STDs [RFC1311].  These subseries      numbers may appear in several RFCs.  For example, when a new RFC      obsoletes or updates an old one, the same subseries number is      used.  Also, several RFCs may be assigned the same subseries      number: a single STD, for example, may be composed of severalHalpern, et al.               Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016      RFCs, each of which will bear the same STD number.  This element      is unchanged.   [<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" [RFC7322].      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.   Category: <category>  This indicates the initial RFC document      category of the publication.  These are defined in [RFC2026].      Currently, this is always one of: Standards Track, Best Current      Practice, Experimental, Informational, or Historic.  This element      is unchanged.3.2.  The Status of This Memo   The "Status of This Memo" describes the category of the RFC,   including the distribution statement.   The "Status of This Memo" will start with a single sentence   describing the status.  It will also include a statement describing   the stream-specific review of the material (which is stream   dependent).  This is an important component of status, insofar as it   clarifies the breadth and depth of review, and gives the reader an   understanding of how to consider its content.3.3.  Paragraph 1   The first paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" section contains a   single sentence, clearly standing out.  The sentence will clearly   identify the stream-specific status of the document.  The text to be   used is defined by the stream, with a review for clarity by the IAB   and RFC Series Editor.3.4.  Paragraph 2   The second paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will 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.  The IAB defines a   specific structure defined to ensure there is clarity about review   processes and document types.Halpern, et al.               Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 20163.5.  Paragraph 3   The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant   information can be found.  This information may include, subject to   the RFC Editor's discretion, information about whether the RFC has   been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a listing of possible   errata, information about how to provide feedback and suggestion, and   information on how to submit errata as described in [ERRATA].  The   exact wording and URL is subject to change (at the RFC Editor's   discretion), but the current text is:      Information about the current status of this document, any errata,      and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/<static-path>/rfc<rfc-no>.3.6.  Noteworthy   Note that the text in paragraph 1 and 2 of the boilerplate indicate   the initial status of a document.  During their lifetime, documents   can change status to, for example, Historic.  This cannot be   reflected in the document itself and will need be reflected in the   information referred to inSection 5.4.  Additional Notes   Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe   additional notes that will appear as labeled notes after the   "Abstract".   This is no longer a common feature of recent RFCs.  It is the goal of   this document to continue to ensure that the overall RFC structure is   adequately clear so that such notes are unnecessary or (at least)   truly exceptional.5.  Other Structural Information in RFCs   RFCs contain other structural informational elements.  The RFC Editor   is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural   elements.  Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted   using a process consistent with [RFC4844].  These additions may or   may not require documentation in an RFC.   Currently, the following structural information is available in RFCs:   Copyright Notice:  A copyright notice with a reference toBCP 78      [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring toBCP 78      andBCP 79 [BCP79].  The content of these statements are defined      by those BCPs.Halpern, et al.               Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016   ISSN:  The International Standard Serial Number [ISO.3297.2007]:      ISSN 2070-1721.  The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as      title regardless of language or country in which it is published.      The ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique      identification of a serial publication.6.  Security Considerations   This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an   RFC.  Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause   interoperability problems, hence security and stability problems.7.  RFC Editor Considerations   The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the   RFC series.  To that end, the RFC Editor maintains an "RFC Style   Guide" [RFC7322].  In this memo, we mention a few explicit structural   elements that the RFC Editor needs to maintain.  The conventions for   the content and use of all current and future elements are documented   in the style guide.   Adding a reference to the stream in the header of RFCs is only one   method for clarifying from which stream an RFC originated.  The RFC   Editor is encouraged to add such indication in, for example, indices   and interfaces.8.  References8.1.  Normative References   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision              3",BCP 9,RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.   [RFC5742]  Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for              Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",BCP 92,RFC 5742, DOI 10.17487/RFC5742, December 2009,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5742>.8.2.  Informative References   [ISO.3297.2007]              Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and              documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and              description., "Information and documentation -              International standard serial number (ISSN)", ISO Standard              3297, 09 2007.Halpern, et al.               Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016   [RFC3]     Crocker, S., "Documentation conventions",RFC 3,              DOI 10.17487/RFC0003, April 1969,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3>.   [RFC1311]  Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes",RFC 1311,              DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1311>.   [RFC4844]  Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC              Series and RFC Editor",RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,              July 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.   [RFC5143]  Malis, A., Brayley, J., Shirron, J., Martini, L., and S.              Vogelsang, "Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous              Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation Service              over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation",RFC 5143,              DOI 10.17487/RFC5143, February 2008,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5143>.   [RFC5741]  Daigle, L., Ed., Kolkman, O., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Streams,              Headers, and Boilerplates",RFC 5741,              DOI 10.17487/RFC5741, December 2009,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5741>.   [RFC6410]  Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the              Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels",BCP 9,RFC 6410,              DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410>.   [RFC7127]  Kolkman, O., Bradner, S., and S. Turner, "Characterization              of Proposed Standards",BCP 9,RFC 7127,              DOI 10.17487/RFC7127, January 2014,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7127>.   [RFC7322]  Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide",RFC 7322,              DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.   [ERRATA]   Hagens, A., Ginoza, S., and R. Braden, "RFC Editor              Proposal for Handling RFC Errata", Work in Progress,draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02, May 2008.   [BCP78]    Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights              Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust",BCP 78,RFC 5378,              November 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>.Halpern, et al.               Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016   [BCP79]    Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF              Technology",BCP 79,RFC 3979, DOI 10.17487/RFC3979, March              2005.              Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure              Procedure inRFC 3979",BCP 79,RFC 4879,              DOI 10.17487/RFC4879, April 2007.              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>Halpern, et al.               Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016Appendix A.  Initial Formatting Details   This section contains the text the IAB used to initially populate the   web page used to maintain the list of required verbiage.A.1.  RFC Title Page Header   An RFC title page header can be described as follows:------------------------------------------------------------------------<document source>                                          <author name>Request for Comments: <RFC number>                [<author affiliation>][<subseries ID> <subseries number>]    [more author info as appropriate][<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>]Category: <category>                                                            <month year>------------------------------------------------------------------------   For example, the header forRFC 6410 appears as follows:------------------------------------------------------------------------Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        R. HousleyRequest for Comments: 6410                                Vigil SecurityBCP: 9                                                        D. CrockerUpdates:2026                                Brandenburg InternetWorkingCategory: Best Current Practice                                E. BurgerISSN: 2070-1721                                    Georgetown University                                                            October 2011------------------------------------------------------------------------A.2.  Constructing a "Status of This Memo" Section   The following sections describe mandated text for use in specific   parts of the "Status of This Memo" portion of an RFC.  For   convenience, the RFC Editor maintains example expansions of all   permutations of the paragraphs described in this document (at the   time of publication, athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/status-memos.txt).  When in conflict, the following sections are   authoritative.Halpern, et al.               Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016A.2.1.  First Paragraph   The following are the approved texts for use in the first paragraph   of the "Status of This Memo" portion of an RFC.  SeeSection 3.3 of   RFC 7841.   For 'Standards Track' documents:  "This is an Internet Standards      Track document."   For 'Best Current Practices' documents:  "This memo documents an      Internet Best Current Practice."   For other categories  "This document is not an Internet Standards      Track specification; <it is published for other purposes>."   For Informational, Experimental, Historic, and future categories of   RFCs, the RFC Editor will maintain an appropriate text for <it is   published for other purposes>.  Initial values are:   Informational:   "it is published for informational purposes."   Historic:   "it is published for the historical record."   Experimental:   "it is published for examination, experimental      implementation, and evaluation."A.2.2.  Second Paragraph   SeeSection 3.4 of RFC 7841.   The second paragraph may include some text that is specific to the   initial document category.  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."Halpern, et al.               Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016   The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values   and may be updated by stream definition document updates and recorded   by the IAB on the web page.   IETF Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering      Task Force (IETF)."      If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, this      additional text should be added: "It represents the consensus of      the IETF community.  It has received public review and has been      approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering      Group (IESG)."  If there has not been such a consensus call, then      this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the      Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."   IAB Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture      Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed      valuable to provide for permanent record."      If the document represents IAB consensus, this additional text      should be added: "It represents the consensus of the Internet      Architecture Board (IAB)."   IRTF Stream:  "This document is a product of the Internet Research      Task Force (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-      related research and development activities.  These results might      not be suitable for deployment."      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)".   Independent Submission Stream:  "This is a contribution to the RFC      Series, independently of any other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has      chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no      statement about its value for implementation or deployment."   For non-IETF stream documents, a reference toSection 2 of this RFC   is added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for   publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB",   "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of   Internet Standard; seeSection 2 of RFC 7841."Halpern, et al.               Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016   For IETF stream documents, a similar reference is added: "Further   information on (BCPs or Internet Standards) is available inSection 2   of RFC 7841." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all   documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of   Internet Standards; seeSection 2 of RFC 7841." for all other   categories.A.2.3.  Third Paragraph   SeeSection 3.5 of RFC 7841.IAB Members at Time of Approval   The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in   alphabetical order):      Jari Arkko      Mary Barnes      Marc Blanchet      Ralph Droms      Ted Hardie      Joe Hildebrand      Russ Housley      Erik Nordmark      Robert Sparks      Andrew Sullivan      Dave Thaler      Brian Trammell      Suzanne WoolfAcknowledgements   Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza,   and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration.   Thanks to the members of the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC)   for assistance and review: Alexey Melnikov, Nevil Brownlee, Bob   Hinden, Sarah Banks, Robert Sparks, Tony Hansen, and Joe Hildebrand.   Various people have made suggestions that improved the document.   Among them are: Lars Eggert, Alfred Hoenes, and Joe Touch.Halpern, et al.               Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 7841           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates           May 2016Authors' Addresses   Joel M. Halpern (editor)   Email: jmh@joelhalpern.com   Leslie Daigle (editor)   Email: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com   Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)   Email: kolkman@isoc.orgHalpern, et al.               Informational                    [Page 14]