Hi,
[snipping out some useful points]
We had considered what you suggest below, and indeed I typed it up in a recent
email to Yaron before deleting it again.
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.
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?
A
And then a small point in 2.1:
Authors are requested to add a note to the RFC Editor at the top of
this section, advising the Editor to remove the entire section before
publication, as well as the reference to [RFC Editor: replace by a
reference to this document].
Why not include that directly in the recommended boilerplate?:
OLD
The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation
Status section:
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of
this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC
Editor: replace by a reference to this document]. According to
[RFC Editor: replace by a reference to this document], "this will
allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to
documents that have the benefit of running code and potentially
reward the documented protocols by treating the documents with
implementations preferentially". Furthermore, "It is up to the
individual working groups to use this information as they see
fit".
NEW
The following boilerplate text is proposed to head the Implementation
Status section:
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of
this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in
[RFCXXXX]. According to [RFCXXXX], "This will allow reviewers
and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that
have the benefit of running code, by considering the running code
as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has
made the implemented protocols more mature." Furthermore, "It is
up to the individual working groups to use this information as they
see fit".
[RFC Editor: Please remove this entire section and the reference
to RFCXXXX.]
[RFC Editor: The "RFC Editor" note above is there as example text.
Please do not take action on it, and leave it in the document. Instead,
replace "RFCXXXX" by a reference to this document, and remove this
note.]
END