Internet DRAFT - draft-flanagan-7322bis
draft-flanagan-7322bis
Network Working Group J. Levine, Ed.
Internet-Draft Temporary RFC Series Project Manager
Obsoletes: 7322 (if approved) S. Ginoza
Intended status: Informational RFC Editor
Expires: 9 October 2021 7 April 2021
RFC Style Guide
draft-flanagan-7322bis-07
Abstract
This document describes the fundamental and unique style conventions
and editorial policies currently in use for the RFC Series. It
captures the RFC Editor's basic requirements and offers guidance
regarding the style and structure of an RFC. Additional guidance is
captured on a website that reflects the experimental nature of that
guidance and prepares it for future inclusion in the RFC Style Guide.
This document obsoletes RFC 7322, "RFC Style Guide".
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 October 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RFC Editor's Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RFC Style Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. RFCs as Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. DNS Names and URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Capitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Abbreviation Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7. Images and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Structure of an RFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. First-Page Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.1. Author/Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.2. Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.3. ISSN: 2070-1721 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.4. Digital Object Identifier 10.17487 . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.5. Updates and Obsoletes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Document Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Abstract Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5. Status of This Memo Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.6. Copyright, Licenses, and IPR Boilerplate Section . . . . 14
4.7. Table of Contents Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8. Body of the Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8.1. Introduction Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8.2. Requirements Language Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8.3. IANA Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.8.4. Internationalization Considerations Section . . . . . 15
4.8.5. Security Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.8.6. References Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.9. Appendices Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.10. Acknowledgements Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.11. Contributors Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.12. Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.13. Author's Address or Authors' Addresses Section . . . . . 23
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. Related Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.1. Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.2. Returning an I-D to the Document Stream . . . . . . . . . 27
A.3. Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages . . . . . 28
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
The ultimate goal of the RFC publication process is to produce
documents that are readable, clear, and consistent. The basic
formatting conventions for RFCs were established in the 1970s by the
original RFC Editor, Jon Postel. This document describes the
fundamental and unique style conventions and editorial policies
currently in use for the RFC Series [RFC4844] and is intended as a
stable, infrequently updated reference for authors, editors, and
reviewers.
The RFC Editor also maintains a web portion of the Style Guide (see
Appendix A.3) that describes issues as they are raised and indicates
how the RFC Editor intends to address them. As new style issues
arise, the RFC Editor will first address them on the web portion of
the Style Guide [STYLE-WEB]. These topics may become part of the RFC
Style Guide when it is revised.
The world of publishing has generally accepted rules for grammar,
punctuation, capitalization, sentence length and complexity, etc.
The RFC Editor generally follows these accepted rules as defined by
the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) [CMOS], with a few important
exceptions to avoid ambiguity in complex technical prose and to
handle mixtures of text and computer languages, or to preserve
historical formatting rules. This document presents these exceptions
as applied or recommended by the RFC Editor.
All RFCs begin as Internet-Drafts (also referred to as I-Ds), and a
well-written and properly constructed Internet-Draft [ID-GUIDE]
provides a strong basis for a good RFC. The RFC Editor accepts
Internet-Drafts from specified streams for publication [RFC4844] and
applies the rules and guidelines for the RFC Series during the
editorial process.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
2. RFC Editor's Philosophy
Authors may find it helpful to understand the RFC Editor's goals
during the publication process, namely to:
* Prepare the document according to RFC style and format.
* Make the document as clear, consistent, and readable as possible.
* Correct larger content/clarity issues; flag any unclear passages
for author review.
* Fix inconsistencies (e.g., terms that appear in various forms,
inconsistent capitalization, discrepancies between a figure and
the text that describes it).
We strive for consistency within:
a. the document,
b. a cluster of documents [CLUSTER], and
c. the series of RFCs on the subject matter.
The editorial process of the RFC Editor is not an additional
technical review of the document. Where the RFC Editor may suggest
changes in wording for clarity and readability, it is up to the
author, working group, or stream-approving body to determine whether
the changes have an impact on the technical meaning of the document
[RFC4844]. If the original wording is a more accurate representation
of the technical content being described in the document, it takes
precedence over editorial conventions.
The activity of editing sometimes creates a tension between author
and editor. The RFC Editor attempts to minimize this conflict for
RFC publication while continually striving to produce a uniformly
excellent document series. The RFC Editor refers to this fundamental
tension as "editorial balance," and maintaining this balance is a
continuing concern for the RFC Editor. There is a prime directive
that must rule over grammatical conventions: do not change the
intended meaning of the text.
If the RFC Editor cannot edit a document without serious risk of
altering the meaning, it may be returned to the stream-approving body
for review. See Appendix A.2 for more information.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
3. RFC Style Conventions
This Style Guide does not use terminology as defined in RFC 2119
[BCP14]. In this document, lowercase use of "must" and "should"
indicates changes the RFC Editor will make automatically to conform
with this Style Guide versus those that may be questioned if not
applied. The lowercase "must" indicates those changes that will be
applied automatically and are not at the discretion of the authors.
The lowercase "should" indicates the RFC Editor's recommended use,
but conformance with the recommendations is not required; the RFC
Editor may question whether the guidance may be applied.
3.1. Language
The RFC publication language is English. Spelling may be either
American or British, as long as an individual document is internally
consistent. Where both American and British English spelling are
used within a document or cluster of documents, the text will be
modified to be consistent with American English spelling.
3.2. Punctuation
1. A comma is used before the last item of a series, e.g.,
"TCP service is reliable, ordered, and full duplex"
2. When quoting literal text, punctuation is placed outside
quotation marks, e.g.,
Search for the string "Error Found".
When quoting general text, such as general text from another RFC,
punctuation may be included within the quotation marks, e.g.,
RFC 4844 indicates that "RFCs are available free of charge to
anyone via the Internet."
Quotation marks are not necessary when text is formatted as a
block quotation.
3.2.1. RFCs as Compounds
Whenever possible:
* Hyphenated compounds formed with RFC numbers should be avoided;
this can be accomplished by: rewording the sentence (e.g., change
"[RFC5011]-style rollover" to "rollover as described in RFC
5011").
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
* adding a note in either the Terminology or Conventions section
mentioning the RFC so that other occurrences throughout the text
will be understood by the reader to be in the style of said RFC
(e.g., This document uses the term "rollover" as defined in RFC
5011.).
If use of an RFC number in attributive position is unavoidable, the
preferred form should appear as in the example "RFC 5011-style
rollover". That is:
* no hyphen between "RFC" and the number (don't use RFC-5011-style
rollover)
* avoid hyphenating citations with text (don't use [RFC5011]-style
rollover)
3.3. DNS Names and URIs
DNS names, whether or not in URIs, that are used as generic examples
in RFCs should use the particular examples defined in "Reserved Top
Level DNS Names" [BCP32], to avoid accidental conflicts.
Angle brackets are strongly recommended around URIs [STD66], e.g.,
<https://example.com/>
The use of HTTPS rather than HTTP is strongly encouraged.
3.4. Capitalization
1. Capitalization must be consistent within the document and ideally
should be consistent with related RFCs. Refer to the online
table of decisions on consistent usage of terms in RFCs [TERMS].
2. Per CMOS guidelines, the major words in RFC titles and section
titles should be capitalized (this is sometimes called "title
case"). Typically, all words in a title will be capitalized,
except for internal articles, prepositions, and conjunctions.
3. Section titles that are in sentence form will follow typical
sentence capitalization.
4. Titles of figures may be in sentence form or use title case.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
5. Some terms related to the various roles or parts of the streams
authoring RFCs should be used consistently. For example, when
the term 'working group' or 'research group' is used as part of a
specific group name, it will be capitalized (e.g., kitten Working
Group, Crypto Forum Research Group). When used to generally
refer to groups, it will be downcased.
3.5. Citations
The most important function of a citation is to point to a reference
so that a reader may follow up on additional material that is
important in some way to understanding or implementing the content in
an RFC. This section offers guidance on the requirements and
recommendations for citation format within an RFC.
1. References and citations must match. That is, there must be a
reference for each citation used, and vice versa.
2. Citations must be enclosed in square brackets (e.g., "[CITE1]").
3. Citations are restricted to ASCII-only characters, as described
in "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs" [RFC7997].
4. Citations must begin with a number or a letter, and may contain
digits, letters, colons, hyphens, underscores, or dots.
* Example: "[IEEE.802.15.4]" rather than "[.802.15.4]"
* Example: "[RFC2119]" rather than "[RFC 2119]"
5. Citations may not include spaces, commas, quotation marks, or
other punctuation (!, ?, etc.), and should be in-line with the
normal line of type.
* Example: "See RFC 2119 [BCP14] for more information."
6. Cross-references within the body of the memo and to other RFCs
must use section numbers rather than page numbers, as pagination
may change per format and device.
7. A citation may A) follow the subject to which the citation
applies or B) be read as part of the text. For example:
a. As part of the transition to IPv6, NAT64 [RFC6146] and DNS64
[RFC6147] technologies will be utilized by some access
networks to provide IPv4 connectivity for IPv6-only nodes
[RFC6144].
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
b. Note that SAVI raises a number of important privacy
considerations that are discussed more fully in [RFC6959].
8. For a document referenced multiple times in running text, the
citation anchor must be at first use outside the abstract.
Additional citations are allowed at the author's discretion.
We recommend using A) and strongly recommend consistent use of one
style throughout.
3.6. Abbreviation Rules
Abbreviations should be expanded in document titles and upon first
use in the document. The full expansion of the text should be
followed by the abbreviation itself in parentheses. The exception is
an abbreviation that is so common that the readership of RFCs can be
expected to recognize it immediately; examples include (but are not
limited to) TCP, IP, SNMP, and HTTP. The online list of
abbreviations [ABBR] provides guidance. Some cases are marginal, and
the RFC Editor will make the final judgment, weighing obscurity
against complexity.
Note: The online list of abbreviations is not exhaustive or
definitive. It is a list of abbreviations appearing in RFCs and
sometimes reflects discussions with authors, Working Group Chairs,
and/or Area Directors (ADs). Note that some abbreviations have
multiple expansions. Additionally, this list includes some terms
that look like abbreviations but that are actually fixed names for
things and hence cannot and should not be expanded. These are noted
as "No Expansion".
3.7. Images and Figures
The goal of having images within an RFC is to convey information. A
good diagram or image expresses information quickly, clearly, and
with low chance of misunderstanding. Technically correct but
confusing images get in the way of understanding and implementation.
1. Images should be legible when displayed on a standard screen
(1920x1080) and printable on either A4 or US Letter paper. Any
text within the diagram should be readable at that resolution.
2. Authors should use black on white, not white on black. No color
or greyscale [RFC7990][RFC7996]
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
3. Keep your diagrams as simple as possible. If an object in the
diagram is not immediately relevant, leave it out. If you have
several ideas you want to convey, consider using more than one
diagram.
4. San-serif fonts are generally considered more readable for
digital material. [citation needed]
5. The style of diagrams within an RFC should be consistent both
within a single RFC and within a cluster of RFCs (fonts, shapes,
lines). For example, if you you use a dashed line to indicate a
certain type of packet flow, then continue to use that style of
line consistently.
6. Line styles, including thickness, color, and arrow types, are
easy methods to convey a particular meaning to the reader.
Consistently use the same line styles to convey a particular
meaning throughout all diagrams within an RFC in order to avoid
confusing the reader.
7. Flowcharts: avoid crossing the lines if possible.
8. Captions or alternative text are encouraged for all figures,
diagrams, and other artwork. [ALTTEXT] [RFC7991]
4. Structure of an RFC
A published RFC will largely contain the elements in the following
list. Some of these sections are required, as noted. Those sections
marked with "*" will be supplied by the RFC Editor during the
editorial process when necessary. The rules for each of these
elements are described in more detail below.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
First-page header * [Required]
Title [Required]
Abstract [Required]
RFC Editor or Stream Note * [Upon request]
Status of This Memo * [Required]
Copyright Notice * [Required]
Table of Contents * [Required]
Body of the Memo [Required]
1. Introduction [Required]
2. Requirements Language (RFC 2119)
3. ...
MAIN BODY OF THE TEXT
6. ...
7. IANA Considerations [Required]
8. Internationalization Considerations
9. Security Considerations [Required]
10. References
10.1. Normative References
10.2. Informative References
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Acknowledgements
Contributors
Index
Author's Address [Required]
Within the body of the memo, the order shown above is strongly
recommended. Exceptions may be questioned. Outside the body of the
memo, the order above is required. The section numbers above are for
illustrative purposes; they are not intended to correspond to
required numbering in an RFC.
The elements preceding the body of the memo should not be numbered.
Typically, the body of the memo will have numbered sections and the
appendices will be labeled with letters. Any sections that appear
after the appendices should not be numbered or labeled (e.g., see
"Contributors" above).
4.1. First-Page Header
Headers will follow the format described in "RFC Streams, Headers,
and Boilerplates" [RFC7841] and its successors. In addition, the
following conventions will apply.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
4.1.1. Author/Editor
The final determination of who should be listed as an author or
editor on an RFC is made by the stream, as is whether or not
including author affiliation is required.
The author's name (initial followed by family name) appears on the
first line of the heading. Some variation, such as additional
initials or capitalization of family name, is acceptable. Once the
author has selected how their name should appear, they should use
that display consistently in all of their documents.
The total number of authors or editors on the first page is generally
limited to five individuals and their affiliations. If there is a
request for more than five authors, the stream-approving body needs
to consider if one or two editors should have primary responsibility
for this document, with the other individuals listed in the
Contributors or Acknowledgements section. There must be a direct
correlation of authors and editors in the document header and the
Authors' Addresses section. These are the individuals that must sign
off on the document during the AUTH48 process and respond to
inquiries, such as errata.
4.1.2. Organization
The author's organization is indicated on the line following the
author's name.
For multiple authors, each author name appears on its own line,
followed by that author's organization. When more than one author is
affiliated with the same organization, the organization can be
"factored out," appearing only once following the corresponding
Author lines. However, such factoring is inappropriate when it would
force an unacceptable reordering of author names.
If an author cannot or will not provide an affiliation for any
reason, "Independent", "Individual Contributor", "Retired", or some
other term that appropriately describes the author's affiliation may
be used. Alternatively, a blank line may be included in the document
header when no affiliation is provided.
4.1.3. ISSN: 2070-1721
The RFC Series has been assigned an International Standard Serial
Number of 2070-1721 [ISO3297]. It will be included by the RFC
Editor.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
4.1.4. Digital Object Identifier 10.17487
The RFC Series has been assigned a Digital Object Identifier prefix
of 10.17487 [RFC7669]. A DOI will be assigned and included by the
RFC Editor.
4.1.5. Updates and Obsoletes
When an RFC obsoletes or updates a previously published RFC or RFCs,
this information is included in the document header. For example:
"Updates: nnnn" or "Updates: nnnn, ..., nnnn"
"Obsoletes: nnnn" or "Obsoletes: nnnn, ..., nnnn"
If the document updates or obsoletes more than one document, numbers
will be listed in ascending order.
4.2. Document Title
The title must be centered below the rest of the heading, preceded by
two blank lines and followed by one blank line.
Choosing a good title for an RFC can be a challenge. A good title
should fairly represent the scope and purpose of the document without
being either too general or too specific and lengthy.
Abbreviations in a title must generally be expanded when first
encountered (see Section 3.6 for additional guidance on
abbreviations).
It is often helpful to follow the expansion with the parenthesized
abbreviation, as in the following example:
Encoding Rules for the
Common Routing Encapsulation Extension Protocol (CREEP)
The RFC Editor recommends that documents describing a particular
company's private protocol should bear a title of the form "Foo's ...
Protocol" (where Foo is a company name), to clearly differentiate it
from a protocol of more general applicability.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
4.3. Abstract Section
Every RFC must have an Abstract that provides a concise and
comprehensive overview of the purpose and contents of the entire
document, to give a technically knowledgeable reader a general
overview of the function of the document and some context with
regards to its relationship (in particular, whether it updates or
obsoletes) any other RFCs. In addition to its function in the RFC
itself, the Abstract section text will appear in publication
announcements and in the online index of RFCs.
Composing a useful Abstract generally requires thought and care.
Usually, an Abstract should begin with a phrase like "This memo ..."
or "This document ..." A satisfactory Abstract can often be
constructed in part from material within the Introduction section,
but an effective Abstract may be shorter, less detailed, and perhaps
broader in scope than the Introduction. Simply copying and pasting
the first few paragraphs of the Introduction is allowed, but it may
result in an Abstract that is overly long, incomplete, and redundant.
An Abstract is not a substitute for an Introduction; the RFC should
be self-contained as if there were no Abstract. Similarly, the
Abstract should be complete in itself. Given that the Abstract will
appear independently in announcements and indices, mentions of other
RFCs within the Abstract should include both an RFC number and either
the full or short title. Any documents that are Updated or Obsoleted
by the RFC must be mentioned in the Abstract if those documents offer
important provisions of, or reasons for, the RFC. These may be
presented in a list format if that improves readability.
4.4. RFC Editor or Stream Notes Section
A stream-approving body may approve the inclusion of an editorial
note to explain anything unusual about the process that led to the
document's publication or to note a correction. In this case, a
stream note section will contain such a note.
Additionally, an RFC Editor Note section may contain a note inserted
by the RFC Editor to highlight special circumstances surrounding an
RFC.
4.5. Status of This Memo Section
The RFC Editor will supply an appropriate "Status of This Memo" as
defined in RFC [RFC7841] and "Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream"
[IAB-FORM].
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
4.6. Copyright, Licenses, and IPR Boilerplate Section
The full copyright and license notices are available on the IETF
Trust Legal Provisions documents website [IETF-TRUST].
4.7. Table of Contents Section
A Table of Contents (TOC) is required in all RFCs. It must be
positioned after the Copyright Notice and before the Introduction.
4.8. Body of the Memo
Following the TOC is the body of the memo.
Each RFC must include an Introduction section that (among other
things) explains the motivation for the RFC and (if appropriate)
describes the applicability of the document, e.g., whether it
specifies a protocol, provides a discussion of some problem, is
simply of interest to the Internet community, or provides a status
report on some activity. The body of the memo and the Abstract must
be self-contained and separable. This may result in some duplication
of text between the Abstract and the Introduction; this is
acceptable.
4.8.1. Introduction Section
The Introduction section should always be the first section following
the TOC (except in the case of MIB module documents). While
"Introduction" is recommended, authors may choose alternate titles
such as "Overview" or "Background". These alternates are acceptable.
For MIB module documents, common practice has been for "The Internet-
Standard Management Framework" [MIB-BOILER] text to appear as
Section 1.
4.8.2. Requirements Language Section
Some documents use certain capitalized words ("MUST", "SHOULD", etc.)
to specify precise requirement levels for technical features. RFC
2119 [BCP14] defines a default interpretation of these capitalized
words in IETF documents. If this interpretation is used, RFC 2119
must be cited (as specified in RFC 2119) and included as a normative
reference. Otherwise, the correct interpretation must be specified
in the document.
This section must appear as part of the body of the memo (as defined
by this document). It must appear as part of, or subsequent to, the
Introduction section.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
These words are considered part of the technical content of the
document and are intended to provide guidance to implementers about
specific technical features, generally governed by considerations of
interoperability. RFC 2119 says:
Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
on implementers where the method is not required for
interoperability.
4.8.3. IANA Considerations Section
For guidance on how to register IANA-related values or create new
registries to be managed by IANA, see "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs" [BCP26].
The RFC Editor will update text accordingly after the IANA
assignments have been made. It is helpful for authors to clearly
identify where text should be updated to reflect the newly assigned
values. For example, the use of "TBD1", "TBD2", etc., is recommended
in the IANA Considerations section and in the body of the memo.
If the authors have provided values to be assigned by IANA, the RFC
Editor will verify that the values inserted by the authors match
those that have actually been registered on the IANA site. When
writing a given value, consistent use of decimal or hexadecimal is
recommended.
If any of the IANA-related information is not clear, the RFC Editor
will work with IANA to send queries to the authors to ensure that
assignments and values are properly inserted.
4.8.4. Internationalization Considerations Section
All RFCs that deal with internationalization issues should have a
section describing those issues; see "IETF Policy on Character Sets
and Languages" [BCP18], Section 6, for more information.
4.8.5. Security Considerations Section
All RFCs must contain a section that discusses the security
considerations relevant to the specification; see "Guidelines for
Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations" [BCP72] for more
information.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
Note that additional boilerplate material for RFCs containing MIB and
YANG modules also exists. See "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB
Modules" [MIB-SEC] and "yang module security considerations"
[YANG-SEC] for details.
4.8.6. References Section
The reference list is solely for recording reference entries.
Introductory text or annotations beyond necessary translations
[RFC7997] are not allowed.
The RFC style allows the use of any of a variety of reference styles,
as long as they are used consistently within a document. However,
where necessary, some reference styles have been described for use
within the Series. See the following subsections as well as the
References section of this document.
Reference lists must indicate whether each reference is normative or
informative, where normative references are essential to implementing
or understanding the content of the RFC and informative references
provide additional information. More information about normative and
informative references may be found in the IESG's statement
"Normative and Informative References" [REFS]. When both normative
and informative references exist, the references section should be
split into two subsections:
Templates are available on the RFC Editor website for the XML format
of certain references [REFEXAMPLE].
s. References
s.1. Normative References
xxx
...
xxx
s.2. Informative References
xxx
...
xxx
References will generally appear in alphanumeric order by citation
tag. Where there are only normative or informative references, no
subsection is required; the top-level section should say "Normative
References" or "Informative References".
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
Normative references to Internet-Drafts will cause publication of the
RFC to be suspended until the referenced draft is also ready for
publication; the RFC Editor will then update the entry to refer to
the RFC and publish both documents simultaneously.
4.8.6.1. Referencing RFCs
The following format is required for referencing RFCs. The Stream
abbreviation should be used; when no stream is available, as with
legacy RFCs, this may be left blank.
Note the ordering for multiple authors: the format of the name of the
last author listed is different than that of all previous authors in
the list.
For one author or editor:
[RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC
Title", Stream, Sub-series number (if applicable), RFC number, RFC
DOI, Date of publication, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc#>
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc#).
Example:
[RFC3080] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core,"
IETF, RFC 3080, DOI 10.17487/RFC3080, March 2001, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3080> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3080).
[RFC8157] Leymann, N., Heidemann, C., Zhang, M., Sarikaya, B., and M.
Cullen, "Huawei's GRE Tunnel Bonding Protocol", independent, RFC
8157, DOI 10.17487/RFC8157, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8157> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8157).
For two authors or editors:
[RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and First
initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-
series number (if applicable), RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of
publication, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc#> (https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc#).
Example:
[RFC6323] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "Sender RTT Estimate Option
for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", IETF, RFC 6323,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6323, July 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/
rfc6323> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6323).
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
For three or more authors or editors:
[RFCXXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), Last name,
First initial., Ed. (if applicable), and First initial. Last name,
Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title", Stream, Sub-series number (if
applicable), RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of publication,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc#> (https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc#).
Example:
[RFC6429] Bashyam, M., Jethanandani, M., and A. Ramaiah, "TCP Sender
Clarification for Persist Condition", IETF, RFC 6429, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6429, December 2011, >https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6429 <
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6429).
4.8.6.2. Referencing RFC(s) in a Subseries (STDs, BCPs, and FYIs
Internet Standards (STDs) and Best Current Practices (BCPs) may
consist of a single RFC or multiple RFCs. Authors should carefully
consider whether they want to point the reader to the specific RFC or
the sub series group. In the former case, references should appear
as described in Section 4.8.6.2. In the latter case, the sub series
number should take precedence as, for example, the citation tag, even
in cases where the sub series currently contains only one RFC.
When an STD or BCP that contains multiple RFCs is referenced as a sub
series group, the reference entry should include ALL of the RFCs
comprising that sub-series in a reference grouping under a single
citation tag [is it helpful to point them to 7991 or the like on how
to do this here?]. The authors should refer to the specific RFC
numbers as part of the text in the body of the document and cite the
sub series number (for example, "see RFC 2119 of [BCP14]").
Inclusion of the URI to the STD or BCP info page (see Section 3.2.3
of [RFC5741]) is recommended. The text should appear as follows:
See RFC 1034 [STD13].
For an STD or BCP that contains one RFC:
[STDXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title",
Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of publication,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std#> (https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/std#).
Example:
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
[STD72] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
IETF, STD 72, RFC 6409, DOI 10.17487/RFC6409, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std72> (https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/std72).
For an STD or BCP that contains two or more RFCs:
[STDXXX] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable), "RFC Title",
Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, RFC DOI, Date of publication.
Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable),
"RFC Title", Stream, Sub-series number, RFC number, RFC DOI,
Date of publication.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std#>
Example:
[STD13] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
IETF, STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", IETF, STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std13>
Note - some RFCs contain an FYI sub-series number [FYI90] however,
the FYI series was ended by RFC 6360. RFCs that were published with
an FYI sub-series number and still maintain the FYI number must
include the sub-series number in the reference and may otherwise be
treated in the same manner as STDs and BCPs.
Grouping references to RFCs or other materials that are not part of a
sub-series is discouraged.
4.8.6.3. Referencing Internet-Drafts
References to Internet Drafts may only appear as informative
references. Given that several revisions of an I-D may be produced
in a short time frame, references must include the posting date
(month and year), the full Internet-Draft file name (including the
version number), and the phrase "Internet Draft". Authors may
reference multiple versions of an I-D. If the referenced I-D was
also later published as an RFC, then that RFC must also be listed.
The reference should include a stable URL for the draft, if
available.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
[SYMBOLIC-TAG] Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and
First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "I-D Title", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-string-NN, Day Month Year,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-something.
Example:
[RFC-STYLE] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-flanagan-style-04, 27 September 2019,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-flanagan-style-04.
4.8.6.4. Referencing Errata
The following format is required when a reference to an erratum
report is necessary:
[ErrNumber] RFC Errata, Erratum ID number, RFC number,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid#>.
[Err1912] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 1912, RFC 2978, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/errata/eid1912>.
4.8.6.5. Referencing IANA Registries
IANA registries may appear in normative or informative reference
sections.
[IANA-SYMBOLIC-TAG]
IANA, "Registry Name", <URL>.
4.8.6.6. Referencing Other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs)
The following format is suggested when referencing a document or
standard from another SDO in which authors are listed:
[SYMBOLIC-TAG]
Last name, First initial. and First initial. Last name,
"Document Title", Document reference number, Date of
publication, <URI if available>.
[W3C.REC-xml11]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E.,
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
Yergeau, F., and J. Cowan, "Extensible Markup Language
(XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)", W3C Recommendation
REC-xml11-20060816, August 2006,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816>.
The order of authors in the list is the same as the order shown on
the actual document and that the common, abbreviated form of the SDO
is used.
Alternatively, when no list of authors is available, the following
format is recommended:
[SYMBOLIC-TAG] Organization, "Document Title", Document
reference number, Date of publication,
<URI if available>.
Example (undated; see note below):
[IEEE.802.15.4]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks",
IEEE 802.15.4,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7460875/>.
Example (dated; see note below):
[IEEE802.1Q] IEEE, "Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks -- Media Access Control (MAC)
Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area
Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011, August 2011,
<https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/
802.1Q-2011.html>
Per the IEEE coordination team, listing dates for IEEE standards is
not recommended unless there is a need to cite a particular section,
in which case the dated reference is appropriate. An RFC with a
dated IEEE reference suggests that the RFC only applies to that
specific IEEE specification.
4.8.6.7. Referencing Webpages
References to webpages acceptable in either the normative or
informative sections, as long as the URL provided is the most stable
(i.e., unlikely to change and expected to be continuously available)
and direct reference possible. The URL will be verified as valid
during the RFC editorial process.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
If a dated URI (one that includes a timestamp for the page) is
available for a referenced web page, its use is required.
Note that the URL may not be the sole information provided for a
reference entry.
The use of HTTPS rather than HTTP is strongly encouraged.
Example:
[SYMBOLIC-TAG] Author (if available), "Page Title (if available)",
<URL>.
[ISOC-MANRS] Internet Society, "Mutually Agreed
Norms for Routing Security",
<https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/manrs>
4.8.6.8. Referencing Email on Mailing Lists
When referencing emails to mailing lists, the template provided here
should be used:
[reftag] Sender, A., "Subject: Subject line", message to the
listname mailing list, DD Month YYYY, <URL>.
4.8.6.9. Referencing Code Repositories
References to online code repositories such as GitHub or SourceForge
should be used as informative references only. The reference entry
should include the repository title, commit hash or similar release
marker if available, date of last commit, and URL.
Examples:
[pysaml] "Python implementation of SAML2", commit 7135d53,
6 March 2018, <https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2>.
[linuxlite] "Linux Lite", 9 March 2018,
<https://sourceforge.net/projects/linuxlite/>.
4.9. Appendices Section
The RFC Editor recommends placing references before the Appendices.
Appendices should be labeled as "Appendix A. Title", "A.1. Title",
"Appendix B. Title", etc.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
4.10. Acknowledgements Section
This optional section may be used instead of, or in addition to, a
Contributors section. It is often used by authors to publicly thank
those who have provided feedback regarding a document and to note any
documents from which text was borrowed.
4.11. Contributors Section
This optional section acknowledges those who have made significant
contributions to the document.
In a similar fashion to the Author's Address section, the RFC Editor
does not make the determination as to who should be listed as a
contributor to an RFC. The determination of who should be listed as
a contributor is made by the stream.
The Contributors section may include brief statements about the
nature of particular contributions (e.g., "Sam contributed
Section 3"), and it may also include affiliations of listed
contributors. At the discretion of the author(s), contact addresses
may also be included in the Contributors section, for those
contributors whose knowledge makes them useful future contacts for
information about the RFC. The format of any contact information
should be similar to the format of information in the Author's
Address section.
4.12. Index
If included, an index appears at the end of the document, immediately
before Author's Address section.
4.13. Author's Address or Authors' Addresses Section
This required section gives contact information for the author(s)
listed in the first-page header.
Contact information must include a long-lived email address and
optionally may include a postal address and/or telephone number. If
the postal address is included, it should include the country name,
using the English short name listed by the ISO 3166 Maintenance
Agency [ISO_OBP]. The purpose of this section is to (1)
unambiguously define author identity (e.g., the John Smith who works
for FooBar Systems) and (2) provide contact information for future
readers who have questions or comments.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
The practice of munged email addresses (i.e., altering an email
address to make it less readable to bots and web crawlers to avoid
spam) is not appropriate in an archival document series. Author
contact information is provided so that readers can easily contact
the author with questions and/or comments. Address munging is not
allowed in RFCs.
5. Security Considerations
This document has no security considerations.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations.
7. Change Log
This section to be removed before publication.
-00 to -01: Citation tag requirements more tightly specified;
index moved; new errata URI added; capitalization of working/
research group specified
-01 to -02: update Abstract guidance
-02 to -03: updated citation section; changed list styles; added
angle brackets to reference examples; changed I-D reference
format; clarified sub-series reference format; added guidance on
referencing code repositories
-03 to -04: updated Reference Section guidance; added information
on alt text
-04 to -05: change author, add acknowledgement
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[STYLE-WEB]
RFC Editor, "Web Portion of the Style Guide",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/part2.html>.
8.2. Informative References
[ABBR] RFC Editor, "RFC Editor Abbreviations List",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/
abbrev.expansion.txt>.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
[ALTTEXT] W3C, "Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.1: Info and
Relationships",
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/info-and-
relationships>.
[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14>.
[BCP18] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp18>.
[BCP26] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an
ANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26>.
[BCP32] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp32>.
[BCP72] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp72>.
[CLUSTER] RFC Editor, "Clusters in the RFC Editor Queue",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_def.html>.
[CMOS] University of Chicago Press, 2010, "Chicago Manual of
Style, 16th ed.", 2010.
[FYI90] Malkin, G. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on FYI: Introduction to
the FYI Notes", FYI 90, RFC 1150, March 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/fyi90>. Housley, R.,
"Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series", RFC 6360, August 2011.
[IAB-FORM] IAB, "Format for RFCs in the IAB Stream",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/iab-
format.txt>.
[ID-GUIDE] IETF, "Guidelines to Authors of Internet Drafts",
<https://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt>.
[IETF-TRUST]
IETF Trust, "Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)",
<https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/>.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
[ISO3297] Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and
documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, "Identification and
description, Information and documentation - International
standard serial number (ISSN)", September 2007.
[ISO_OBP] ISO, "Online Browsing Platform (OBP)",
<https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/>.
[MIB-BOILER]
IETF OPS Area, "Boilerplate for IETF MIB Documents",
<https://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html>.
[MIB-SEC] IETF OPS Area, "Security Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules",
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-
security>.
[REFEXAMPLE]
RFC Editor, "Reference Examples",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/ref-example/>.
[REFS] IESG, "IESG Statement: Normative and Informative",
<https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-
informative.html>.
[RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
July 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.
[RFC6635] Kolkman, O., Ed., Halpern, J., Ed., and IAB, "RFC Editor
Model (Version 2)", RFC 6635, DOI 10.17487/RFC6635, June
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6635>.
[RFC7669] Levine, J., "Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to
RFCs", RFC 7669, DOI 10.17487/RFC7669, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7669>.
[RFC7841] Halpern, J., Ed., Daigle, L., Ed., and O. Kolkman, Ed.,
"RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates", RFC 7841,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7841, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7841>.
[RFC7990] Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", RFC 7990,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7990, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7990>.
[RFC7991] Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
[RFC7996] Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC",
RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7996>.
[RFC7997] Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in
RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7997>.
[STD66] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std66>.
[TERMS] RFC Editor, "Terms List",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html>.
[YANG-SEC] IETF Ops Area, "yang module security considerations",
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/yang-
security-guidelines>.
Appendix A. Related Procedures
The following procedures are related to the application and updating
of the RFC Style Guide.
A.1. Dispute Resolution
There are competing rationales for some of the rules described in
this Guide, and the RFC Editor has selected the ones that work best
for the Series. However, at times, an author may have a disagreement
with the RFC Production Center (RPC) over the application of Style
Guide conventions. In such cases, the authors should discuss their
concerns with the RPC. If no agreement can be reached between the
RPC and the authors, the RFC Series Editor will, with input from the
appropriate stream-approving body, make a final determination. If
further resolution is required, the dispute resolution process as
described in the RFC Editor Model [RFC6635] will be followed.
A.2. Returning an I-D to the Document Stream
For a given document, if the RFC Editor determines that it cannot be
edited without serious risk of altering the meaning of the technical
content or if the RFC Editor does not have the resources to provide
the level of editing it needs, it may be sent back to the stream-
approving body with a request to improve the clarity, consistency,
and/or readability of the document. This is not to be considered a
dispute with the author.
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft 7322-bis April 2021
A.3. Revising This Document and Associated Web Pages
The RFC Series is continually evolving as a document series. This
document focuses on the fundamental and stable requirements that must
be met by an RFC. From time to time, the RFC Editor may offer less
formal recommendations that authors may apply at their discretion;
these recommendations may be found on the RFC Editor website
"Guidelines for RFC Style" [STYLE-WEB].
When a new recommendation is made regarding the overall structure and
formatting of RFCs, it will be published on that page and accepted
for a period of time before the RFC Editor determines whether it
should become part of the fundamental requirements in the RFC Style
Guide or remain as a less formal recommendation. That period of time
will vary, in part depending on the frequency with which authors
encounter and apply the guidance.
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
Much of this document was written by Heather Flanagan during her term
as RFC Editor.
Authors' Addresses
John Levine (editor)
Temporary RFC Series Project Manager
Email: standards@standcore.com
URI: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7553-5024
Sandy Ginoza
RFC Editor
Email: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
URI: https://www.rfc-editor.org
Levine & Ginoza Expires 9 October 2021 [Page 28]
