Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-shah-extreme-eaps-05.txt

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <EF574283-2E44-11D7-A865-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com>, RJ Atkin
son writes:
>
>On Wednesday, Jan 22, 2003, at 14:49 America/Montreal, Thomas Narten 
>wrote:
>
>>> This RFC-to-be was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as
>>> Informational: draft-shah-extreme-eaps-01.txt.
>>
>> Quick note:
>>
>> the document contains the wording:
>>
>>    This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in accordance
>>    with Section 10 of RFC-2026, and the author does not provide the 
>> IETF
>>    with any rights other than to publish as an Internet-Draft.
>>
>> I.e., it would not seem that we have the right to publish as an
>> RFC.
>>
>> Is it intended that this document is to be published as an RFC with a
>> no-derivative rights clause?
>
>Thomas,
>
>	The verbage you quote above is standard boilerplate that I copied
>from ietf.org, specifically from:
>	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
>
>	The online material at www.ietf.org gives that as 1 of 3 choices that
>one must select from.  If you find those words confusing, then you all 
>on the
>IESG should put new boilerplate out for folks to select from that says
>"other than to publish as an Internet-Draft or RFC".
>
>	Extreme certainly desires for this to be published by RFC Editor as an
>Informational RFC with a no-derivative-rights clause.

There's nothing at all confusing about those choices -- it's just that 
documents with the third option shouldn't be submitted to the RFC 
editor.  The second choice is intended for your situation, but only the 
original submitters are authorized to make that change, by either 
submitting a new draft or by sending a separate note to the RFC editor.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)