Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                         L. Daigle, Ed.Request for Comments: 5741                               O. Kolkman, Ed.Updates:2223,4844                                          For the IABCategory: Informational                                    December 2009ISSN: 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.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.  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/rfc5741.Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2009 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.  Code Components extracted from this document must   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as   described in the BSD License.Daigle, et al.               Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009Table of Contents1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.  RFC Structural Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.1.  The Title Page Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.2.  The Status of this Memo  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.2.1.  Paragraph 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63.2.2.  Paragraph 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63.2.3.  Paragraph 3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83.2.4.  Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93.3.  Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93.4.  Other Structural Information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . .94.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95.  RFC Editor Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Appendix A.  Some Example 'Status of This Memo' Boilerplates . . .12A.1.  IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12A.2.  IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . .12A.3.  IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . .13A.4.  IAB Informational  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13A.5.  IRTF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . .14A.6.  Independent Submission Informational . . . . . . . . . . .15Appendix B.  IAB Members at Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . .15Appendix C.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151.  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 ensureDaigle, et al.               Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009   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, and provides a comprehensive approach to   updating and using those elements to communicate, with clarity, RFC   document and content status.  Most of the historical structure   information is collected from [RFC2223].   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], and [RFC4844] and their successors for   current details of the IETF process and RFC streams.3.  RFC Structural Elements3.1.  The Title Page Header   This section describes the elements that are commonly found in RFCs   published today.  For the sake of clarity, this document specifies   the elements precisely as a specification.  However, this is not   intended to specify a single, static format.  Details of formatting   are decided by the RFC Editor.  Substantive changes to the header andDaigle, et al.               Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009   boilerplate structure and content may be undertaken in the future,   and are subject to general oversight and review by the IAB.   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, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows:------------------------------------------------------------------------Network Working Group                                          T. DierksRequest for Comments: 4346                                   IndependentObsoletes:2246                                              E. RescorlaCategory: Standards Track                                     RTFM, Inc.                                                              April 2006------------------------------------------------------------------------   The right column contains author name and affiliation information as   well as the RFC publication month.  Conventions and restrictions for   these elements are described in RFC style norms and some individual   stream definitions.   This section is primarily concerned with the information in the left   column:   <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:Daigle, et al.               Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009      *  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)      *  Internet Architecture Board (IAB)      *  Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)      *  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], STDs      [RFC1311], and FYIs [RFC1150].  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 several 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" [RFC2223].  Alternatives 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.  This text is included   irrespective of the source stream of the RFC.   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-Daigle, et al.               Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009   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.3.2.1.  Paragraph 1   The first paragraph of the Status of this Memo section contains a   single sentence, clearly standing out.  It depends on the category of   the document.   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>.  Suggested 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."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.  Suggested   initial text, for current streams, is provided below.   The 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:Daigle, et al.               Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009   Experimental:      "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet      community."   Historic:      "This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet      community."   The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are suggested   initial values and may be updated by stream definition document   updates.   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, an      additional sentence 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."   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 alternativelyDaigle, et al.               Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009         "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 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; see Section 2 ofRFC5741."   For IETF stream documents, a similar reference is added for BCP and   Standards Track documents:      "Further information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available      inSection 2 of RFC 5741."   For all other categories:      "Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any      level of Internet Standard; seeSection 2 of RFC 5741."3.2.3.  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 [RFC-ERRATA].   The exact wording and URL is subject to change (at the RFC Editor's   discretion), but 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/info/rfc<rfc-no>."Daigle, et al.               Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 20093.2.4.  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 e.g., Historic.  This cannot be reflected in the   document itself and will need be reflected in the information   referred to inSection 3.2.3.3.3.  Additional Notes   Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe   additional notes that will appear as labeled notes after the "Status   of This Memo".   While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal   of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear   to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly   exceptional.3.4.  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 or is   being considered for inclusion 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.   ISSN      The International Standard Serial Number [ISO3297]:      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.4.  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.Daigle, et al.               Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 20095.  RFC Editor Considerations   The RFC Editor is responsible for maintaining the consistency of the   RFC series.  To that end the RFC Editor maintains a style manual   [RFC-style].  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 to be   documented in the style manual.   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 e.g., indices and   interfaces.6.  References6.1.  Normative References   [RFC2026]     Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --                 Revision 3",BCP 9,RFC 2026, October 1996.   [RFC5742]     Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for                 Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions",BCP 92,RFC 5742, December 2009.6.2.  Informative References   [ISO3297]     Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and                 documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and                 description., "Information and documentation -                 International standard serial number (ISSN)", 09 2007.   [RFC0003]     Crocker, S., "Documentation conventions",RFC 3,                 April 1969.   [RFC1311]     Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes",RFC 1311,                 March 1992.   [RFC1150]     Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction                 to the FYI Notes",RFC 1150, March 1990.   [RFC2223]     Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC                 Authors",RFC 2223, October 1997.   [RFC2629]     Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML",RFC 2629,                 June 1999.Daigle, et al.               Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009   [RFC4844]     Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC                 Series and RFC Editor",RFC 4844, July 2007.   [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,                 February 2008.   [RFC-ERRATA]  Hagens, A., Ginoza, S., and R. Braden, "RFC Editor                 Proposal for Handling RFC Errata", Work in Progress,                 May 2008.   [BCP78]       Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights                 Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust",BCP 78,RFC 5378, November 2008.   [BCP79]       Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual                 Property Rights in IETF Technology",BCP 79,RFC 3979,                 April 2007.                 Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party                 Disclosure Procedure inRFC 3979",BCP 79,RFC 4879,                 April 2007.   [RFC-style]   RFC Editor, "RFC Style Guide",                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html>.Daigle, et al.               Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009Appendix A.  Some Example 'Status of This Memo' BoilerplatesA.1.  IETF Standards Track   The boilerplate for a Standards Track document that (by definition)   has been subject to an IETF consensus call.------------------------------------------------------------------------Status of This Memo   This is an Internet Standards Track document.   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force   (IETF).  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).  Further   information on Internet Standards is available inSection 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/rfc<rfc-no>.------------------------------------------------------------------------A.2.  IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call   The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been subject to   an IETF consensus call.------------------------------------------------------------------------Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for examination, experimental implementation, and   evaluation.   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering   Task Force (IETF).  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).  Not   all documents approved by the IESG are 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/rfc<rfc-no>.------------------------------------------------------------------------Daigle, et al.               Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009A.3.  IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call   The boilerplate for an Experimental document that not has been   subject to an IETF consensus call.------------------------------------------------------------------------Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for examination, experimental implementation, and   evaluation.   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering   Task Force (IETF).  It has been approved for publication by the   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents   approved by the IESG are 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/rfc<rfc-no>.------------------------------------------------------------------------A.4.  IAB Informational   The boilerplate for an Informational IAB document.------------------------------------------------------------------------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.  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/rfc<rfc-no>.------------------------------------------------------------------------Daigle, et al.               Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009A.5.  IRTF Experimental, No Consensus Call   The boilerplate for an Experimental document that has been produced   by the IRTF and for which there was no RG consensus.  This variation   is the most verbose boilerplate in the current set.------------------------------------------------------------------------Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for examination, experimental implementation, and   evaluation.   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet   community.  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.  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).  Documents approved for   publication by the IRSG 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/rfc<rfc-no>.------------------------------------------------------------------------Daigle, et al.               Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009A.6.  Independent Submission Informational   The boilerplate for an Informational document that has been produced   by the Independent Submission stream.------------------------------------------------------------------------Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for informational purposes.   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.  Documents approved for   publication by the RFC Editor 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/rfc<rfc-no>.------------------------------------------------------------------------Appendix B.  IAB Members at Time of Approval   The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in   alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart   Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba,   Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave   Thaler, and Lixia Zhang.  In addition, the IAB included two   ex-officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive   Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.Appendix C.  Acknowledgements   Thanks to Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Steve Crocker, Sandy Ginoza,   and John Klensin who provided background information and inspiration.   Various people have made suggestions that improved the document.   Among them are: Lars Eggert, Alfred Hoenes, and Joe Touch.   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].Daigle, et al.               Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 5741           RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates      December 2009Authors' Addresses   Leslie Daigle (editor)   EMail: daigle@isoc.org, leslie@thinkingcat.com   Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)   EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl   Internet Architecture Board   EMail: iab@iab.orgDaigle, et al.               Informational                     [Page 16]