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/