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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

[ dropped Randy Presuhn]

We (IESG) are so "flexible" or "inconsistent".

- For a long time nobody seemed to give a shoot.
  This was untill we found that often the IPR statement did
  not get inserted by the RFC-Editor, while RFC2026 says
  it miust be included in stds track docs.

- We then decided (at the time we approved current ID-NITS)
  that we would force authors/editors to put an IPR section 
  into the ID that would come to the IESG table.

- The RFC-Editor added in 2223bis (at some point, I forget which
  revision) that authors must include it. So that is now inline
  with our ID-NITS page.

- Since the IPR WG started, there is some text in one of the IPR
  WG docs that (I believe) says that RFC-Editor will/must insert 
  the IPR text. 

- To me... that sounded like laziness on our (IESG) side to force
  the issue upon the authors/editors of IDs. I think it is GOOD
  to force the authors/editors to insert that statement themselves.
  If kind of FORCES them to think about the fact if they themselves
  know anything about IPR for the specifiued technology.
  It also (formally at least, maybe not in practice) causes that at
  WG and IETF Last Call, people who do the review the document are
  explicitly forced to think about that IPR that THEY may have and 
  so that they probably should report it if they do.

- So... I believe that (at least some ADs) are now more relaxed and
  do not request IPR to be inserted by the authors/editors.
  I personally still ask people to do so. I will stop once we update
  the ID-NITS page. Not earlier.

But to be frank... I get kind of sick of these things. We as IESG
are UNABLE to come up with a CONSISTENT measure on how we do these
(kind of) simple bureaucratic/admin things. And so the community 
sees (all the time) that we are inconsistent and change our procedures
all the time and even then we tend to apply them inconsistent 
depending on how detailed review we do (or how our hat fits that
specific day... or whatever).

Thanks,
Bert 
p.s. yep... this type of stuff does frustrate me once in a while.
Now back to normal business. Sorry for the flame.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 8 april 2003 3:04
> To: Randy Presuhn
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Editorial comments on draft-ietf-ipsec-sctp-05.txt 
> 
> 
> 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-rfc2223b
is-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)