Re: Editorial comments on draft-ietf-ipsec-sctp-05.txt

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

In message <016401c2fd68$2a46bbe0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>, "Randy Presuhn" writes
:
>Hi -
>
>> From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
>> To: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@cs.columbia.edu>
>> Cc: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; <ji@research.att.com>; <
>rrs@cisco.com>
>> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 5:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: Editorial comments on draft-ietf-ipsec-sctp-05.txt
>...
>> Don't worry about the pagination -- the RFC editor is going to convert
>> the published I-D (back?) to nroff.
>
>Someone should update http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
>to reflect this change to submission format requirements.

Those are the requirements for I-Ds.  Yes, it should have been 
paginated.  At this point, that doesn't matter.
>
>> The IPR stuff is something like Section 9 of rfc3510.  But don't wory
>> about that, either -- the IESG has agreed with the RFC editor that the
>> RFC editor will add it.
>
>Someone should inform the WG chairs, and perhaps ipr-wg, since it
>would conceivably run into their "implied consent" discussion.

I don't think so, though I'll be happy to ask the rest of the IESG.
The IPR disclosure requirement applies at I-D (or mailing list, or what 
have you) submission time.  Since IPR claims can come from other 
parties than the draft author, it's not incumbent on the author to add 
the notice, since it may be different regardless of what the author 
believes.
>
>> Copyright material is always added by the RFC editor; what's important
>> in an I-D is the text that is at the start of this one, stating that
>> the I-D is in full conformance with 2026.
>
>That's not what RFC 2223 and
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt
>have lead us to believe.  Furthermore, http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html
>says they must have the IPR and copyright notices.
>
The IPR notice stuff is a very recent change.  I believe that 2223 is 
just stating what will be in RFCs, not what the I-D author has to do.

[To the IESG:  am I misunderstanding something?]


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