Re: boilerplate issues

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

this topic is one that has been raised on the problem-statement list
maybe the discussion should move there

----
>From iesg-admin@ietf.org  Thu Jan 23 10:09:39 2003
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:08:19 -0500
Subject: Re: boilerplate issues
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551)
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
From: RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <333990000.1043333617@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: iesg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: iesg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: iesg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg>,
	<mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <iesg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg>,
	<mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>


On Thursday, Jan 23, 2003, at 09:53 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand wrote:

> Ran,
>
> can we take this to the IPR list?
>
> it's obviously not something the IESG is going to make clear on its 
> own.

	I'm happy to mention the issue to the IPR list in due course, though
it still is not obvious why an IETF IPR WG's charter would include the
process for RFC Editor publication of non-IETF documents (i.e. those 
that
aren't end-run attempts).

	I'd prefer to get a sense of what the folks here happen to think about
the questions I posed -- which are specifically for non-IETF documents,
before we move to that list, if you don't terribly mind.

	Part of my concern is that the primary question I'm raising is why
non-IETF documents need to jump through all of the same hurdles that
IETF documents have to jump through.  Everyone sees the value in having
the IESG review non-IETF stuff to ensure there aren't end-runs 
happening,
but why there needs to be more than that for the non-IETF documents is
not obvious to (at least) some of us.

Thanks very much,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com