Re: Standards Track or Informational?

Roy T. Fielding (fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU)
Wed, 16 Nov 94 16:57:41 EST

Eric Sink wrote:

> This reminds me, I think we forgot to remove all the mentions of RFC.
> Roy's been passing along info to make this document legal with all the
> IETF BS, and I don't think we've done that yet.

Yes, I was just about to remind you. For those of you who don't know them,
I have included the Internet-Draft guidelines below. At this point it is
premature to consider under what status the 2.0 document will be *proposed*
to the IESG. Note that it is IESG that makes the final decision, not us.
They may decide not to accept an Informational RFC if it seems to be
setting a standard.

I think the text version should be submitted as an Internet-Draft as soon
as the stuff about "RFC xxxx" and "Standards track", etc., are removed.

> Do informational RFC's have an disadvantages which apply here?

Yes -- we can't go around telling people to "obey the standard".
Of course, W3C could always anoint it as the "W3 standard", but that
could lead to later political difficulties.

.....Roy Fielding ICS Grad Student, University of California, Irvine USA

============= ==============

Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts

The Internet-Drafts directories are available to provide authors with
the ability to distribute and solicit comments on documents they may
submit to the IESG or RFC Editor for publication as an RFC. Submissions
to the directories should be sent to ``''.

Internet-Drafts are not an archival document series. These documents
should not be cited or quoted in any formal document. Unrevised
documents placed in the Internet-Drafts directories have a maximum life
of six months. After that time, they must be updated, or they will be
deleted. After a document becomes an RFC, it will be replaced in the
Internet-Drafts Directories with an announcement to that effect.

Internet-Drafts are generally in the format of an RFC, although they are
expected to be rough drafts. This format is specified fully in RFC 1543.
In brief, an Internet-Draft must be submitted in ASCII text, limited to
72 characters per line and 58 lines per page, followed by a formfeed
character. Overstriking to achieve underlining is not acceptable.

PostScript is acceptable, but only when submitted with a matching ASCII
version (even if figures must be deleted). PostScript should be
formatted for use on 8.5x11 inch paper. If A4 paper is used, an image
area less than 10 inches high should be used to avoid printing extra
pages when printed on 8.5x11 paper.

There are differences between the RFC and Internet-Draft format. The
Internet-Drafts are NOT RFCs and are NOT a numbered document series.
The words ``INTERNET-DRAFT'' should appear in the upper left hand corner
of the first page. The document should NOT refer to itself as an RFC or
a draft RFC.

The Internet-Draft should neither state nor imply that it has any
standards status; to do so conflicts with the role of the RFC Editor and
the IESG. The title of the document should not infer a status. Avoid the
use of the terms Standard, Proposed, Draft, Experimental, Historic,
Required, Recommended, Elective, or Restricted in the title of the
Internet-Draft. All Internet-Drafts should include a section on the first
page containing the following verbatim statement:

This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
``work in progress.''

To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-
Drafts Shadow Directories on (Africa), (Europe), (Pacific Rim), (US East Coast), or (US West Coast).

The document should have an abstract section, containing a two-to-three
paragraph description suitable for referencing, archiving, and
announcing the document. This abstract will be used in the
1id-abstracts.txt index, and in the announcement of the Internet-Draft.
The abstract should follow the ``Status of this Memo'' section. In
addition, the Internet-Draft should contain a section giving name and
contact information (postal mail, voice/fax number and/or e-mail) for
the authors.

All Internet-Drafts should contain the full filename (beginning with
draft- and including the version number) in the text of the document.
The filename information should, at a minimum, appear on the first page
(possibly with the title).

For those authors submitting updates to existing Internet-Drafts, the
choice of the file name is easily determined (up the version by 1). For
new documents, send a message to ``''
with the document title, if it is a product of a working group (and the
name of the group), and an abstract. The file name to be assigned will
be included in a response. Simply add the filename text to the document
(ASCII and PostScript versions) and submit the Internet-Draft.

A document expiration date must appear on the first and last page of the
Internet-Draft. The expiration date is six months following the
submission of the document as an Internet-Draft. Authors can calculate
the six month period by adding five days to the date when the final
version is completed to cover processing time.

If the Internet-Draft is lengthy, please include, on the second page, a
table of contents to make the document easier to reference.