Re: followup discussion
Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to be a well-kept secret, but there IS a page of Concluded Working Groups at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/OLD/index.html (and accessible from the Working Groups page). So the paragraph should point to this as well (just in case a working group DOES conclude!) Sadly, sometimes information about various groups vanishes. A while ago, years after the group concluded, I wanted to get in touch with the TFTP extensions folks, but all traces of the list archives and authors seem to have vanished (although I know what addresses everything once used, it doesn't help much...) Perry
Re: 56th IETF Meeting - Terminal Room
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 802.11A and B will be available to the users on Sunday, March 16th at 1600 PST. Ouch. I had hoped for it to be available earlier, but I guess that can't be helped. The network is actually up and has been since yesterday at 1700. I would imagine, however, that it is subject to alteration and instability until it goes into official production. I'm typing this right now over it from the Hilton lobby. One big tip: explicitly set your nwid to ietf56 or you may accidently roam onto the hotel's network! You really don't want to accidently change networks -- ruins your sessions... -- Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Hi, Harald, It's good to have this presentation in advance of the meeting. A couple of questions follow: - Without asking for details - was Yokohama unusually expensive for reasons that are likely to recur? I'm curious whether this was just because the meeting was in Japan, for instance, or whether we usually expect higher costs outside of North America... - I'm not the brightest candle in the menorah, but - I would have guessed that we would see the number of attendees decreasing, due to (1) general industry business conditions, (2) the telecom nuclear winter, strongly affecting SubIP attendance, and (3) our reluctance to take on new APPS work, so it goes elsewhere. Your presentation projected a slight increase - does a decrease make things better, or worse? - Does going to two, or four, meetings per year help or hurt? - Of course we can raise meeting fees, but we're decrying the influx of professional standards weenies now. Is the expectation that people really just come to IETF when they want to standardize something, and then go away? And I'm sure these won't be the last questions that people ask... Spencer __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
--On 15. mars 2003 10:12 -0800 Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Harald, It's good to have this presentation in advance of the meeting. A couple of questions follow: - Without asking for details - was Yokohama unusually expensive for reasons that are likely to recur? I'm curious whether this was just because the meeting was in Japan, for instance, or whether we usually expect higher costs outside of North America... We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more expensive than Yokohama. With the lack of sponsoring of terminal rooms, the difference is much less, but still significant. The reason for the varying prediction of per-attendee cost for 2004-2005 is that we are considering 2 non-US meetings in 2004 - but if they are definitely more expensive than US meetings even when we get sponsors outside the US and no sponsors inside the US, we may have to reevaluate. - I'm not the brightest candle in the menorah, but - I would have guessed that we would see the number of attendees decreasing, due to (1) general industry business conditions, (2) the telecom nuclear winter, strongly affecting SubIP attendance, and (3) our reluctance to take on new APPS work, so it goes elsewhere. Your presentation projected a slight increase - does a decrease make things better, or worse? Definitely worse. - Does going to two, or four, meetings per year help or hurt? My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees by 50% - the same people would come, I think. Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about others' we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting attendance, but many would indeed feel obligated to go to all four, so would pay more, I think. Whether they would get more things done is an open question. - Of course we can raise meeting fees, but we're decrying the influx of professional standards weenies now. Is the expectation that people really just come to IETF when they want to standardize something, and then go away? I'm more worried about the differential impact raising fees would have - it would mean very little for the professional standardizers from the vendors, but would have a negative effect on the self-funded, the academics and other groups that help us preserve a multifaceted perspective on what the Internet is and should be. And I'm sure these won't be the last questions that people ask... Assuredly not!
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Harald, The short and sweet of it is: Unless we change something, our current funding methods won't pay for our current work. At the presentation, I'll ask the floor what they think about various ideas for improving the situation. At one point some of us tried to use the .org redelegation to help fund the IETF. [1] We didn't win but the ISOC's bid did win. Did the ISOC make the same commitment, could they divert some funding from .org domain registrations to support the IETF? It only seems like the right thing to do, at least it did to those of us who worked on the bid [2] So, couldn't the ISOC make the same commitment fund the IETF and IAB? -rick [1] http://trusted.resource.org/Support/ISOC/intent_to_donate.pdf [2] http://trusted.resource.org/
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
that would have to be a decision of PIR and its board - ISOC does not, at least as I understand it, have any direct access to the .org revenues. ISOC does select the PIR board but otherwise there is no financial connection. Vint At 12:08 PM 3/15/2003 -0800, Rick Wesson wrote: Harald, The short and sweet of it is: Unless we change something, our current funding methods won't pay for our current work. At the presentation, I'll ask the floor what they think about various ideas for improving the situation. At one point some of us tried to use the .org redelegation to help fund the IETF. [1] We didn't win but the ISOC's bid did win. Did the ISOC make the same commitment, could they divert some funding from .org domain registrations to support the IETF? It only seems like the right thing to do, at least it did to those of us who worked on the bid [2] So, couldn't the ISOC make the same commitment fund the IETF and IAB? -rick [1] http://trusted.resource.org/Support/ISOC/intent_to_donate.pdf [2] http://trusted.resource.org/ Vint Cerf SVP Architecture Technology WorldCom 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees by 50% - the same people would come, I think. Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about others' we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting attendance, but many would indeed feel obligated to go to all four, so would pay more, I think. Whether they would get more things done is an open question. I hate the idea of more travel, plus I suspect 4 may be harder to justify to management. However, try as we may to do things right, the IETF is increasingly doing its work at meetings instead of mailing lists. If we can't fix it we should probably accept it. Also, more regular meetings might tend to discourage interim meetings, which would be excellent. Melinda
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more expensive than Yokohama. With the lack of sponsoring of terminal rooms, the difference is much less, but still significant. The reason for the varying prediction of per-attendee cost for 2004-2005 is that we are considering 2 non-US meetings in 2004 - but if they are definitely more expensive than US meetings even when we get sponsors outside the US and no sponsors inside the US, we may have to reevaluate. Having access to wireless networks and the Internet throughout the meetings are certainly a desireable feature. However, they are hardly a deciding factor on whether or not I attend an IETF meeting. In many ways, if there was no network we might actually get more done. What percentage of the costs of a meeting are due to the terminal room and related expenses? - Does going to two, or four, meetings per year help or hurt? My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees by 50% - the same people would come, I think. Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about others' we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting attendance, but many would indeed feel obligated to go to all four, so would pay more, I think. Whether they would get more things done is an open question. The real question is to what extent is it reasonable for the costs of running the IETF be funded by relying on attendance fees? It has always struck me as odd that the people who volunteer to do the work of the IETF pay for the privilege. The IETF does not really function as a standards body in the traditional sense as it is not funded either by government grants nor by a consortium of industry. The IETF does not develop mandatory standards which must be adhered to in order to have certified products. Instead everything we do is voluntary. Not only is the work voluntary but so is the output. In many ways the IETF is the ultimate open source project. As with many open source projects, the survival of the project is dependent upon those that do the work having alternative sources of income to support the efforts. I have never felt that was an appropriate funding model for any work that I have done. [If only I could be ensured of a comfortable lifestyle for myself and my family I would glady spend all of my efforts volunteering and give away everything I do for free.] On the other hand, the work of the IETF It would seem that we would want those that benefit from the results of the IETF to pay. The problem is that the benefits the IETF provides to the Internet community are so hard to quantify and put a monetary price on. Nor is it easy to determine who the beneficiaries are? Is it the end-user behind a cable modem? Or the ISP? Or the operating systems, hardware, and application vendors? Should fees be taxes on the use of RFCs? Or perhaps a tax on IP addresses? Or domain names? Who would care the most if the IETF were to disappear? Would it make sense to form sub-areas of the IETF that are funded as Industry Consortiums with membership fees and contributions so that the rest of the working groups could be open? It seems to me that those groups that come to the IETF seeking the expertise of the IETF participants, the IESG review, and the IETF RFC publication status would be more than willing to pay for the privilege of bringing their nearly completed work into the body. (Assuming of course that the IETF thought the work was worthwhile.) I realize that this e-mail is mostly just rambling thoughts but there are no obvious answers jumping out to solve the funding problems of the IETF. - Jeffrey Altman
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
On Wednesday at the IESG plenary, I'm doing a presentation about IETF financials. ... harald - many thanks for making this material available. would it be possible for you to provide just a slight amount of additional material in your presentation, specifically, could we get a breakdown of the following meeting costs: - food - connectivity/terminal room/etc. - other major items it's hard to figure out what to optimize unless we understand the relative sizes of these things. for example, my gut reaction is to say just cancel the food on the theory that people can pay for this themselves, with a very small efficiency hit. in contrast, having everyone arrange their own connectivity would be amusing, but highly inefficient. /mtr
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presentedWednesday
--On Saturday, 15 March, 2003 16:59 -0500 Jeffrey Altman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more expensive than Yokohama. With the lack of sponsoring of terminal rooms, the difference is much less, but still significant. The reason for the varying prediction of per-attendee cost for 2004-2005 is that we are considering 2 non-US meetings in 2004 - but if they are definitely more expensive than US meetings even when we get sponsors outside the US and no sponsors inside the US, we may have to reevaluate. Having access to wireless networks and the Internet throughout the meetings are certainly a desirable feature. However, they are hardly a deciding factor on whether or not I attend an IETF meeting. In many ways, if there was no network we might actually get more done. What percentage of the costs of a meeting are due to the terminal room and related expenses? To the extent to which this question is worth looking at, I suggest that it would be useful to further dissect it. For example, terminal or computer rentals are, in my experience, quite expensive. If we get rid of them, shifting the burden of bringing (or renting) computers to those who want to use them, we not only reduce that expense, but probably reduce the amount of floor space we need for terminal rooms (relevant when we need to pay for that space). I don't know what the combination costs, or how many people who are really active participants are dependent on the terminals/computers, as distinct from Ethernet or Wireless drops, but it seems to me to be a question worth asking. The real question is to what extent is it reasonable for the costs of running the IETF be funded by relying on attendance fees? It has always struck me as odd that the people who volunteer to do the work of the IETF pay for the privilege. The IETF does not really function as a standards body in the traditional sense as it is not funded either by government grants nor by a consortium of industry. The IETF does not develop mandatory standards which must be adhered to in order to have certified products. Instead everything we do is voluntary. Not only is the work voluntary but so is the output. There may be some misconceptions or misunderstanding here, although the attendance fees for a body that claims one can fully participate without ever attending a meeting are, indeed, a bit strange. But there are few mandatory standards in the information technology area. Everything ISO and ANSI do is voluntary (both the work and adoption of the output). And the (rather high) fees are paid for, by and large, by the organizations whose members/ employees are doing the work. Yes, some few of those standards are then legislated into required practices, but that could happen with ours as well. And I most other national standards bodies, at least those of which I'm aware, work more or the same way although the level of government involvement and subsidy is higher in many cases. The you expect us to contribute our time and talent and then pay you for the privilege and sign over all copyright rights (including republication within our own organizations to you so you can charge us for the documents we wrote policies are widely resented, but still generally practiced. regards, john
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
Another random thought: Could any money be saved by not meeting on Friday? For IETF meetings (such as the upcoming meeting in SF) without a social event, the Tuesday evening slot is empty. Couldn't the Friday slots have been moved to Tuesday evening instead? Ross.
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
After the last IETF meeting that was held in San Jose, a decree was issued that no future meetings be held in Silicon Valley because of unmanageably large attendance. Harald's slides say that part of the problem we now face is reduced revenue due to reduced attendance. The answer seems obvious to me. [Um, yes, I do live in Silicon Valley.] On a more serious note, IETF used to function with the same attendance numbers as now. Are the costs now out of line with what they were then? -- Steve
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
--On 15. mars 2003 14:59 -0800 Marshall Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday at the IESG plenary, I'm doing a presentation about IETF financials. ... harald - many thanks for making this material available. would it be possible for you to provide just a slight amount of additional material in your presentation, specifically, could we get a breakdown of the following meeting costs: - food - connectivity/terminal room/etc. - other major items The 2001 figures are available on the IETF Chair's pages - the 2002 figures aren't that much different. They will be published at the same level of details as soon as the auditors are done with them; I summed these together until they were reasonably legible when printed on a slide it's hard to figure out what to optimize unless we understand the relative sizes of these things. for example, my gut reaction is to say just cancel the food on the theory that people can pay for this themselves, with a very small efficiency hit. in contrast, having everyone arrange their own connectivity would be amusing, but highly inefficient. check the notes on the 2001 page - it seems that hotels in the US want to take just about the same amount off us for meeting rooms + food as they would otherwise take for the meeting rooms alone. Bizarre, but that seems to be the case. Outside the US, the story is different - there we pay for the rooms no matter what, but I think the total package cost is a matter of negotiation in that case too. In the case of a 30-minute break, I think it actually pays for itself in terms of manpower time - the time spent snarfing cookie + coffee and continuing conversation is a lot more productive than the time spent in the queue at Starbuck's, bolting the coffee and then jumping back into the next meeting. OTOH, perhaps people could live from lunch to dinner without cookies???
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
(from the peanut gallery:) OTOH, perhaps people could live from lunch to dinner without cookies??? Would better integration with local economies around meetings help? Would people volunteer to scout out alternatives? Aren't hotel and starbucks cookies much more expensive than small-business cookies? (Sure, the hotels will tax the imports in the total package cost.) Hotel-residing meeting attendants: spend more of your per-diem on tips at the hotel to (sorta) compensate. In the long term, that'll bring down total package cost, too.) -t
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Stephen Casner wrote: After the last IETF meeting that was held in San Jose, a decree was issued that no future meetings be held in Silicon Valley because of unmanageably large attendance. Harald's slides say that part of the problem we now face is reduced revenue due to reduced attendance. The answer seems obvious to me. [Um, yes, I do live in Silicon Valley.] On a more serious note, IETF used to function with the same attendance numbers as now. Are the costs now out of line with what they were then? Good idea! Let's raise the registration fee by 500$ for US based IETF attenders as they have the capability to pay more due to lower travel costs :-). The closer the more it should cost! -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
harald - many thanks for making this material available. would it be possible for you to provide just a slight amount of additional material in your presentation, specifically, could we get a breakdown of the following meeting costs: - food - connectivity/terminal room/etc. - other major items The 2001 figures are available on the IETF Chair's pages - the 2002 figures aren't that much different. They will be published at the same level of details as soon as the auditors are done with them; I summed these together until they were reasonably legible when printed on a slide thanks! to quote from http://www.ietf.org/u/chair/financials.html : - Food Beverage $862,500 - Audio/Visual$127,337 - Room Rental $190,265 - Other Meeting Exp $1,925 Total IETF Meeting Expenses $1,182,027 ... The cost for food and beverage covers participants' breakfasts, coffe and break food at IETF events. In the US, this is one way in which hotels recover the cost of meeting rooms; in one recent query, the secretariat got a quote on meeting rooms without food for USD 238.000 (at 50% off list price). At a similar meeting where we got the meeting rooms for free, our food and beverages bill was approximately USD 250.000. Outside the US, we are usually charged separately for the meeting rooms and the food. check the notes on the 2001 page - it seems that hotels in the US want to take just about the same amount off us for meeting rooms + food as they would otherwise take for the meeting rooms alone. Bizarre, but that seems to be the case. maybe i'm not following, but it looks like (food + meeting room) / 3 = $350,921 which is still $113K more than getting the meeting rooms only. In the case of a 30-minute break, I think it actually pays for itself in terms of manpower time - the time spent snarfing cookie + coffee and continuing conversation is a lot more productive than the time spent in the queue at Starbuck's, bolting the coffee and then jumping back into the next meeting. OTOH, perhaps people could live from lunch to dinner without cookies??? harald, please, banks takes cash, not goodwill. if we want to say it pays for itself, then someone better start collecting money for the food. i suppose we could say that the meeting rooms are subsidizing the food, but frankly, i'd prefer that we didn't spend the additional $340K/year, and folks who want food can have breakfast at the hotel restaurant and snacks at whatever's available at the lobby level. now maybe we can't get a better deal 'cause the hotels know they have a racket. fine. however, we still fill-up whatever hotel we end up. perhaps we ought to pick one or two hotels to have meetings at and do a multi-year contract. given the sorry state of the economy, seems to me that we ought to be able to find a hotel willing to do a deal. we can even follow casner's lead and book a hotel in silicon valley. the one thing that the 2001 numbers don't tell us is what we're spending on the terminal rooms (since in 2001 they were donated, hoorah!). seems to me that the only thing we should be providing is wifi/10bT and maybe a printer or two. anyone who can't bring a laptop to an ietf meeting is probably doesn't need connectivity anyway... i'm sure wednesday night there will be a spirited discussion... /mtr
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more expensive than Yokohama. Aren't London and Yokohama quite expensive relative to other possible alternatives in the area? I don't know about Asia but there must be well-connected (flightwise) places in Europe that cost less then London to host a meeting. Jan
RE: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
i suppose we could say that the meeting rooms are subsidizing the food, but frankly, i'd prefer that we didn't spend the additional $340K/year, and folks who want food can have breakfast at the hotel restaurant and snacks at whatever's available at the lobby level. As most people I know of have to eat and drink, this suggestion would only increase the cost of going to IETF meetings, and the ones who would win something would be the hotel restaurants. I also agree with Harald that the convenient food service makes us work more efficient, and I further think it is an important social component. To reduce the costs, John made a good point about terminal rooms, and especially computers. These days, providing wireless connectivity would probably be sufficient. Since we do not have that many parameters to play with, I think we will have to adjust the meeting fees to the current financial situation. What we should further do is to make sure people can participate even if they can not afford to go to the meetings (f2f meetings are supposed to be an optional component of IETF work, right?). /L-E
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
At 03:20 PM 3/15/2003 -0500, Melinda Shore wrote: My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees by 50% - the same people would come, I think. Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about others' we whould expect slightly lower per-meeting attendance, but many would indeed feel obligated to go to all four, so would pay more, I think. Whether they would get more things done is an open question. I hate the idea of more travel, plus I suspect 4 may be harder to justify to management. However, try as we may to do things right, the IETF is increasingly doing its work at meetings instead of mailing lists. If we can't fix it we should probably accept it. Also, more regular meetings might tend to discourage interim meetings, which would be excellent. I agree. Given that the work of the IETF is centered on the publication of documents, and given that most I-Ds are published near the I-D cutoff deadlines, it stands to reason that IETF productivity will increase by 33% if the number of publication cycles per year is increased from 3 to 4. Melinda Andy
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
i suppose we could say that the meeting rooms are subsidizing the food, but frankly, i'd prefer that we didn't spend the additional $340K/year, and folks who want food can have breakfast at the hotel restaurant and snacks at whatever's available at the lobby level. As most people I know of have to eat and drink, this suggestion would only increase the cost of going to IETF meetings, and the ones who would win something would be the hotel restaurants. sure, but why does the group have to subsidize it? the problem, as you point out, is that there aren't that many parameters to play with. saying we have to keep the food may very well make the problem insoluable (or at least too costly to solve). in other words, if most of the money is spent on food, then it really doesn't matter how much we cut back on the other things, does it? whether it's the hotel restaurants, or vendors who sublet from the hotel, or the starbucks across the street, i don't care. what i do care about is the $340K/year figure (if accurate, harald still needs to confirm that). put another way: how many folks are willing to pay an extra $300 per meeting to cover the food? I also agree with Harald that the convenient food service makes us work more efficient, and I further think it is an important social component. in that case, maybe we should subsidize the bar bofs as well... To reduce the costs, John made a good point about terminal rooms, and especially computers. These days, providing wireless connectivity would probably be sufficient. and i agree. Since we do not have that many parameters to play with, I think we will have to adjust the meeting fees to the current financial situation. What we should further do is to make sure people can participate even if they can not afford to go to the meetings (f2f meetings are supposed to be an optional component of IETF work, right?). a worthy goal, regardless of the financial situation... /mtr
Re: Financial state of the IETF - to be presented Wednesday
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:46:12AM -0800, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: We usually expect higher costs outside North America - London was even more expensive than Yokohama. Speaking from a purely extremely selfish point of view, as a North American, how much would it help if we were to cut back to one meeting outside North America every 5-6 IETF's, instead of once a year, which seems to be the current rate? I was not able to get travel funding to go to Yokohama, and I will almost certainly not be able to attend the summer IETF in Austria. At one point, I was told that Europeans were paying roughly the same for intra-European travel as they were to travel to North America, but North Americans were paying more to travel to Europe. Is this still disparity (seemingly caused by inefficiencies and the lack of competition in the European travel market, coupled with the high expenses and low profit margins of the various national carriers) still true? Times are incredibly tough right now, from all over - Ted
Re: Last Call: Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP
Comments below. On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request to consider Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt as a BCP. This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. a very important thing to note -- [10] Eastlake, D. and E. Panitz, Reserved Top Level DNS Names, RFC 2606, June 1999. == hopefully this isn't the reference practise, should be s/E. Panitz/Panitz, E./, right? This seems to be happening with almost all the drafts, with the last of multiauthor lists, so I'm fearing a bug in the tools? (of course, tools aren't the problem of IESG, RFC-ED etc. as such, but should be noted and corrected ASAP.) non-editorial: -- This Request for Comments (RFC) document provides instructions for authors regarding the preparation of RFCs and describes RFC publication policies. For the latest version of this document, see == Is this intentional? Would it be more useful to just document the rfc editorial policies, and leave the politics (which could change one way or the other) out? (I'm ok with both approaches) == publication policies? Abstract says editorial policies, btw. Abbreviations (e.g., acronyms) in a title should generally be expanded; the exception is abbreviations that are so common (like TCP, IP, SNMP, FTP, etc.) that every member of the IETF can be expected to recognize them immediately. It is often helpful to == would it be the time to start recognizing IPv6 under this category..? It has been over 10 years... :-) 2.10 IANA Considerations Many RFCs define protocol specifications that require the assignment of values to protocol parameters, and some define new parameter fields. Assignment of these parameter values is often (and sometimes must be) deferred until publication of the defining RFC. The IANA and the RFC Editor collaborate closely to ensure that all required parameters are assigned and entered into the final RFC text. Any RFC that defines a new namespace [9] of assigned numbers should include an IANA Considerations section specifying how that space should be administered. See Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs [9] for a detailed discussion of the issues to be considered and the contents of this section. == so, IANA considerations is not needed if you're just requesting a few values from existing namespaces? It would seem to make sense to have a section anyway (at least in the I-D's if not necessarily RFC's). In some namespaces, there are some subsets of a namespace (example: different option values in IPv6 hop-by-hop/destination options header), so specifying the requested values somewhere might be useful. == same in 4.11 Obsoletes Specifies an earlier document that is replaced by the new document. The new document can be used alone as a replacement for the obsoleted document. The new document may contain revised information or all of the same information plus some new information, however extensive or brief that new information may be. == for clarification: I've sometimes seen text like XXX obsoletes RFC YYY. RFC YYY will become Historic. I assume there is no connection between Obsoleted and Historic, and the above text is just heretic unclear for not separating the actions properly? Many RFC documents have appendices, some of which may be very extensive. It is often customary in academic publications to place appendices at the very end, after references. This is permissible in an RFC, but we recommend that an author place any appendices at the end of the body of the text and before the references. This is appropriate because the references of an RFC may be normative and should therefore be clearly accessible at the very end of the document. == is this really the recommendation? The intent of appendices, IMO, is to separate stuff should considered separate from the RFC, and putting it in after the references (at least) seems like a much better idea mostly editorial: - document [2]. The IESG may also specify that a document is to become part of the STD or TYI sub-series (Best Common == s/TYI/FYI/ not listed, please send e-mail to the authors of the document, and CC: the RFC Editor (Section 5.) 2.2 Not all RFCs are Standards == perhaps use a more formal wording for CC: == s/all/All/ Some standards track document use certain capitalized words == s/track/-track/ == s/document/documents/ (4) The Authors' Address section at the end of the RFC must == s/s'/'s/ or s/Address/Addresses/ ? 7. Body of memo == s/of/of the/ 13. Authors' Address
