> Yes, we could do what you suggest, but as you found, it requires a kind of > meta-note to the RFC Editor that starts to get messy and confusing.
I don't know: I don't think the meta-note is a problem. Perhaps you might pass it by Sandy and see if she thinks it's reasonable and understandable. > If you feel strongly that something needs to be included in the boilerplate we > can look again. but since it is only suggested rather than mandated > boilerplate, > maybe it is enough to ask for a note to be added rather than including the > text > of the note in the boilerplate? Sure, it's enough... though I really do think that if you're recommending boilerplate, you should recommend complete boilerplate. But, no, this isn't a "DISCUSS" level thing. :-) Barry
