rfc7841v1.txt   rfc7841.txt 
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) J. Halpern, Ed. Internet Architecture Board (IAB) J. Halpern, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7841 Request for Comments: 7841 L. Daigle, Ed.
Obsoletes: 5741 L. Daigle, Ed. Obsoletes: 5741 O. Kolkman, Ed.
Category: Informational Category: Informational April 2016
ISSN: 2070-1721 O. Kolkman, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721
Internet Society
Internet Architecture Board
(IAB)
April 2016
RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
Abstract Abstract
RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title
page header, standard boilerplates, and copyright/IPR statements. page header, standard boilerplates, and copyright/IPR statements.
This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect
current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular,
this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 23
3.4. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.6. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Other Structural Information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Other Structural Information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Initial Formatting Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Initial Formatting Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.1. RFC Title Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A.1. RFC Title Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.2. Constructing a "Status of This Memo" Section . . . . . . 10 A.2. Constructing a "Status of This Memo" Section . . . . . . 10
A.2.1. First Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A.2.1. First Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.2.2. Second Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A.2.2. Second Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.2.3. Third Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A.2.3. Third Paragraph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
IAB Members at Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 IAB Members at Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Previously, RFCs (e.g., [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements Previously, RFCs (e.g., [RFC4844]) contained a number of elements
that were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They that were there for historical, practical, and legal reasons. They
also contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of also contained boilerplate material to clearly indicate the status of
the document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the the document and possibly contained "Notes" to indicate how the
document interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents. document interacts with IETF Standards-Track documents.
As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been As the RFC Series has evolved over the years, there has been
skipping to change at page 3, line 30 skipping to change at page 3, line 26
publication. publication.
2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards 2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards
Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet Standards- Users of RFCs should be aware that while all Internet Standards-
related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet related documents are published as RFCs, not all RFCs are Internet
Standards-related documents. Standards-related documents.
The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards The IETF is responsible for maintaining the Internet Standards
Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing, Process, which includes the requirements for developing, reviewing,
and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. These, and any other and approving Standards Track and BCP RFCs. The IETF also produces
standards-related documents (Informational or Experimental) are non-Standards-Track documents (Informational, Experimental, and
reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF Historic). All documents published as part of the IETF Stream are
stream. reviewed by the appropriate IETF bodies.
Documents published in streams other than the IETF stream are not Documents published in streams other than the IETF stream are not
generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security, generally reviewed by the IETF for such things as security,
congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
protocols. They have also not been subject to approval by the protocols. They have also not been subject to approval by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), including an IETF-wide
last call. Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF last call. Therefore, the IETF disclaims, for any of the non-IETF
stream documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any stream documents, any knowledge of the fitness of those RFCs for any
purpose. purpose.
skipping to change at page 6, line 34 skipping to change at page 6, line 34
can change status to, for example, Historic. This cannot be can change status to, for example, Historic. This cannot be
reflected in the document itself and will need be reflected in the reflected in the document itself and will need be reflected in the
information referred to in Section 5. information referred to in Section 5.
4. Additional Notes 4. Additional Notes
Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe Exceptionally, a review and publication process may prescribe
additional notes that will appear as labeled notes after the additional notes that will appear as labeled notes after the
"Abstract". "Abstract".
While this has been a common feature of recent RFCs, it is the goal This is no longer a common feature of recent RFCs. It is the goal of
of this document to make the overall RFC structure adequately clear this document to continue to ensure that the overall RFC structure is
to remove the need for such notes, or at least make their usage truly adequately clear so that such notes are unnecessary or (at least)
exceptional. truly exceptional.
5. Other Structural Information in RFCs 5. Other Structural Information in RFCs
RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor RFCs contain other structural informational elements. The RFC Editor
is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural is responsible for the positioning and layout of these structural
elements. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted elements. Note also that new elements may be introduced or obsoleted
using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or using a process consistent with [RFC4844]. These additions may or
may not require documentation in an RFC. may not require documentation in an RFC.
Currently, the following structural information is available or is Currently, the following structural information is available in RFCs:
being considered for inclusion in RFCs:
Copyright Notice: A copyright notice with a reference to BCP 78 Copyright Notice: A copyright notice with a reference to BCP 78
[BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP 78 [BCP78] and an Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP 78
and BCP 79 [BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined and BCP 79 [BCP79]. The content of these statements are defined
by those BCPs. by those BCPs.
ISSN: The International Standard Serial Number [ISO.3297.2007]: ISSN: The International Standard Serial Number [ISO.3297.2007]:
ISSN 2070-1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as ISSN 2070-1721. The ISSN uniquely identifies the RFC series as
title regardless of language or country in which it is published. title regardless of language or country in which it is published.
The ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique The ISSN itself has no significance other than the unique
identification of a serial publication. identification of a serial publication.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an This document tries to clarify the descriptions of the status of an
RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause RFC. Misunderstanding the status of a memo could cause
skipping to change at page 8, line 20 skipping to change at page 8, line 13
3297, 09 2007. 3297, 09 2007.
[RFC3] Crocker, S., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3, [RFC3] Crocker, S., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0003, April 1969, DOI 10.17487/RFC0003, April 1969,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3>.
[RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311, [RFC1311] Postel, J., "Introduction to the STD Notes", RFC 1311,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992, DOI 10.17487/RFC1311, March 1992,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1311>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1311>.
[RFC3979] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, DOI 10.17487/RFC3979, March
2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3979>.
[RFC4749] Sollaud, A., "RTP Payload Format for the G.729.1 Audio
Codec", RFC 4749, DOI 10.17487/RFC4749, October 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4749>.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844, Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
July 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>. July 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.
[RFC5143] Malis, A., Brayley, J., Shirron, J., Martini, L., and S. [RFC5143] Malis, A., Brayley, J., Shirron, J., Martini, L., and S.
Vogelsang, "Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Vogelsang, "Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation Service Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation Service
over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation", RFC 5143, over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation", RFC 5143,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5143, February 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5143, February 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5143>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5143>.
skipping to change at page 9, line 17 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.
[ERRATA] Hagens, A., Ginoza, S., and R. Braden, "RFC Editor [ERRATA] Hagens, A., Ginoza, S., and R. Braden, "RFC Editor
Proposal for Handling RFC Errata", Work in Progress, Proposal for Handling RFC Errata", Work in Progress,
draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02, May 2008. draft-rfc-editor-errata-process-02, May 2008.
[BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights [BCP78] Bradner, S., Ed. and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
November 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>. November 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78>.
[BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed. and T. Narten, Ed., "Intellectual [BCP79] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, April 2007. Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3979, DOI 10.17487/RFC3979, March
2005.
At the moment of publication: [RFC3979] and [RFC4749] Narten, T., "Clarification of the Third Party Disclosure
Procedure in RFC 3979", BCP 79, RFC 4879,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4879, April 2007.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79>
Appendix A. Initial Formatting Details Appendix A. Initial Formatting Details
This section contains the text the IAB used to initially populate the This section contains the text the IAB used to initially populate the
web page used to maintain the list of required verbiage. web page used to maintain the list of required verbiage.
A.1. RFC Title Page Header A.1. RFC Title Page Header
An RFC title page header can be described as follows: An RFC title page header can be described as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
<document source> <author name> <document source> <author name>
Request for Comments: <RFC number> [<author affiliation>] Request for Comments: <RFC number> [<author affiliation>]
[<subseries ID> <subseries number>] [more author info as appropriate] [<subseries ID> <subseries number>] [more author info as appropriate]
[<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>] [<RFC relation>:<RFC number[s]>]
Category: <category> Category: <category>
<month year> <month year>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, a sample earlier RFC header is as follows: For example, the header for RFC 6410 appears as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Working Group T. Dierks
Request for Comments: 4346 Independent Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Housley
Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla Request for Comments: 6410 Vigil Security
Category: Standards Track RTFM, Inc. BCP: 9 D. Crocker
April 2006 Updates: 2026 Brandenburg InternetWorking
Category: Best Current Practice E. Burger
ISSN: 2070-1721 Georgetown University
October 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.2. Constructing a "Status of This Memo" Section A.2. Constructing a "Status of This Memo" Section
The following sections describe mandated text for use in specific The following sections describe mandated text for use in specific
parts of the "Status of This Memo" portion of an RFC. For parts of the "Status of This Memo" portion of an RFC. For
convenience, the RFC Editor maintains example expansions of all convenience, the RFC Editor maintains example expansions of all
permutations of the paragraphs described in this document (at the permutations of the paragraphs described in this document (at the
time of publication, at http://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/status- time of publication, at http://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/status-
memos.txt). When in conflict, these following sections are memos.txt). When in conflict, these following sections are
authoritative. authoritative.
skipping to change at page 10, line 22 skipping to change at page 11, line 13
authoritative. authoritative.
A.2.1. First Paragraph A.2.1. First Paragraph
The following are the approved texts for use in the first paragraph The following are the approved texts for use in the first paragraph
of the "Status of This Memo" portion of an RFC. See Section 3.3 of of the "Status of This Memo" portion of an RFC. See Section 3.3 of
RFC 7841. RFC 7841.
For 'Standards Track' documents: "This is an Internet Standards For 'Standards Track' documents: "This is an Internet Standards
Track document." Track document."
For 'Best Current Practices' documents: "This memo documents an For 'Best Current Practices' documents: "This memo documents an
Internet Best Current Practice." Internet Best Current Practice."
For other categories "This document is not an Internet Standards For other categories "This document is not an Internet Standards
Track specification; <it is published for other purposes>." Track specification; <it is published for other purposes>."
For Informational, Experimental, Historic, and future categories of For Informational, Experimental, Historic, and future categories of
RFCs, the RFC Editor will maintain an appropriate text for <it is RFCs, the RFC Editor will maintain an appropriate text for <it is
published for other purposes>. Initial values are: published for other purposes>. Initial values are:
Informational: "it is published for informational purposes." Informational: "it is published for informational purposes."
Historic: "it is published for the historical record." Historic: "it is published for the historical record."
Experimental: "it is published for examination, experimental Experimental: "it is published for examination, experimental
implementation, and evaluation." implementation, and evaluation."
A.2.2. Second Paragraph A.2.2. Second Paragraph
See Section 3.4 of RFC 7841. See Section 3.4 of RFC 7841.
The second paragraph may include some text that is specific to the The second paragraph may include some text that is specific to the
initial document category, as follows: when a document is initial document category. When a document is Experimental or
Experimental or Historic, the second paragraph opens with: Historic, the second paragraph opens with:
Experimental: "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for Experimental: "This document defines an Experimental Protocol for
the Internet community." the Internet community."
Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the Historic: "This document defines a Historic Document for the
Internet community." Internet community."
The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values The text that follows is stream dependent -- these are initial values
and may be updated by stream definition document updates and recorded and may be updated by stream definition document updates and recorded
by the IAB on the web page. by the IAB on the web page.
IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF)." Task Force (IETF)."
If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, this If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, this
additional text should be added: "It represents the consensus of additional text should be added: "It represents the consensus of
the IETF community. It has received public review and has been the IETF community. It has received public review and has been
approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
Group (IESG)." If there has not been such a consensus call, then Group (IESG)." If there has not been such a consensus call, then
this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the this simply reads: "It has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed
valuable to provide for permanent record." valuable to provide for permanent record."
If the document represents IAB consensus, this additional text If the document represents IAB consensus, this additional text
should be added: "It represents the consensus of the Internet should be added: "It represents the consensus of the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB)." Architecture Board (IAB)."
IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet- Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
related research and development activities. These results might related research and development activities. These results might
not be suitable for deployment." not be suitable for deployment."
In addition, a sentence indicating the consensus base within the In addition, a sentence indicating the consensus base within the
IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the
<insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force <insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual
opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)". Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)".
Independent Submission Stream: "This is a contribution to the RFC Independent Submission Stream: "This is a contribution to the RFC
Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has
chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no
statement about its value for implementation or deployment." statement about its value for implementation or deployment."
For non-IETF stream documents, a reference to Section 2 of this RFC For non-IETF stream documents, a reference to Section 2 of this RFC
is added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for is added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for
publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB", publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB",
"IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841." Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841."
skipping to change at page 11, line 40 skipping to change at page 13, line 4
Independent Submission Stream: "This is a contribution to the RFC Independent Submission Stream: "This is a contribution to the RFC
Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has
chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no
statement about its value for implementation or deployment." statement about its value for implementation or deployment."
For non-IETF stream documents, a reference to Section 2 of this RFC For non-IETF stream documents, a reference to Section 2 of this RFC
is added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for is added with the following sentence: "Documents approved for
publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB", publication by the [stream approver -- currently, one of: "IAB",
"IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of "IRSG", or "RFC Editor"] are not a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841." Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841."
For IETF stream documents, a similar reference is added: "Further For IETF stream documents, a similar reference is added: "Further
information on (BCPs or Internet Standards) is available in Section 2 information on (BCPs or Internet Standards) is available in Section 2
of RFC 7841." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all of RFC 7841." for BCP and Standard Track documents; "Not all
documents approved by the IESG are candidate for any level of documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC 7841." for all other Internet Standards; see Section 2 of RFC 7841." for all other
categories. categories.
A.2.3. Third Paragraph A.2.3. Third Paragraph
See Section 3.5 of RFC 7841. See Section 3.5 of RFC 7841.
IAB Members at Time of Approval IAB Members at Time of Approval
The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in The IAB members at the time this memo was approved were (in
skipping to change at page 12, line 47 skipping to change at page 14, line 16
Joel M. Halpern (editor) Joel M. Halpern (editor)
Email: jmh@joelhalpern.com Email: jmh@joelhalpern.com
Leslie Daigle (editor) Leslie Daigle (editor)
Email: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com Email: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)
Internet Society
Email: kolkman@isoc.org Email: kolkman@isoc.org
Internet Architecture Board
Email: iab@iab.org
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
48 lines changed or deleted 54 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/