RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
RFC 5741
This RFC was published on the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) stream.
This RFC is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type |
RFC
- Informational
(December 2009)
Errata
Obsoleted by RFC 7841
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | IAB , Leslie Daigle , Olaf Kolkman | ||
| Last updated | 2013-03-02 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Architecture Board (IAB) | ||
| Formats |
RFC 5741
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) L. Daigle, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5741 O. Kolkman, Ed.
Updates: 2223, 4844 For the IAB
Category: Informational December 2009
ISSN: 2070-1721
RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates
Abstract
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; see
Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://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 to BCP 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 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. RFC Streams and Internet Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RFC Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. The Title Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. The Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Paragraph 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3. Paragraph 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.4. Noteworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Other Structural Information in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of This Memo' Boilerplates . . . 12
A.1. IETF Standards Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.2. IETF Experimental, with Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.3. IETF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.4. IAB Informational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.5. IRTF Experimental, No Consensus Call . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.6. Independent Submission Informational . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. IAB Members at Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. 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 ensure
Daigle, 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 Elements
3.1. 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 and
Daigle, 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. Dierks
Request for Comments: 4346 Independent
Obsoletes: 2246 E. Rescorla
Category: 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 alternatively
Daigle, 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 to Section 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 of RFC
5741."
For IETF stream documents, a similar reference is added for BCP and
Standards Track documents:
"Further information on [BCPs or Internet Standards] is available
in Section 2 of RFC 5741."
For all other categories:
"Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any
level of Internet Standard; see Section 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 at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc<rfc-no>."
Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009
3.2.4. 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 in Section 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 to BCP 78 [BCP78] and an
Intellectual Property statement referring to BCP 78 and BCP 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 2009
5. 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. References
6.1. 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 in RFC 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 2009
Appendix A. Some Example 'Status of This Memo' Boilerplates
A.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 in Section 2 of
RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://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; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc<rfc-no>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009
A.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; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://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;
see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc<rfc-no>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009
A.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; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc<rfc-no>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 5741 RFC Streams, Headers, Boilerplates December 2009
A.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; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://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 2009
Authors' Addresses
Leslie Daigle (editor)
EMail: [email protected], [email protected]
Olaf M. Kolkman (editor)
EMail: [email protected]
Internet Architecture Board
EMail: [email protected]
Daigle, et al. Informational [Page 16]