comments on <draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-06.txt>

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

Greetings,

I have two substantive comments on the -06 version of this document:

1.) With one small change (a reference to the technology rights
draft, see editorial nit (2) below), the new Section 2.16 in
<draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-06.txt> is, in my view, a completely
satisfactory way to answer the Last Call comment on the -04 draft:

> 1.) Section 4 of the draft lists the required sections of an RFC,
> but an Intellectual Property section is not among them.  According
> to RFC 2026 Section 10.4, standards-track documents are required to
> have certain IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) notices, and making
> certain that an IPR section is present has long been customary in
> OPS area reviews of MIB specifications.  One could argue, I suppose,
> that this does not need special mention, and the IPR section could
> just be part of the body of an RFC;  however, in view of the fact
> that the IPR notices required by RFC 2026 are missing from some
> recent standards-track documents (e.g., RFC 3407), perhaps it might
> be better to have it called out as a separate section (both in
> Section 4 and in the checklist in Appendix C) and to note that it is
> required for standards-track documents.

2.) Speaking for myself, I would like to see RFC2223bis published
essentially as it is in <draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-06.txt>,
without the need to wait for the IPR working group to finish its
job.  In order to do this it will be necessary to demote [IPR03] and
[IPS03] to the status of informative references (there are the IPR
WG technology rights and submission rights drafts, respectively).  
The only place where I see either of these documents cited in a
normative way is in the last paragraph of Section 2.12 on page 14,
which contains a normative reference to [IPS03].  That normative
reference could be replaced by a pointer to RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1,
which has essentially the same material.  The wording change I
suggest is something along these lines:

OLD:
      Finally, it is important to note that the copyright rules
      governing RFC publication [IPS03] require that an RFC must:

           "[acknowledge] all major Contributors.  A major Contributor
           is any person who has materially or substantially contributed
           to the [RFC]." [IPS03]

      The Contributors and Acknowledgment sections fulfill this
      objective.

NEW:
      Finally, it is important to note that the submission rules
      governing contributions in RFC 2026 Section 10.3.1 require that
      an RFC must properly acknowledge major contributors to the RFC.
      A major contributor is:

           "any person who has materially or substantially contributed
           to the [RFC]." [IPS03]

      The Contributors and Acknowledgment sections fulfill this
      objective.

I think this change would allow [IPS03] to be demoted to the status
of an informative reference, since the relevant text is quoted and I
don't have to look at that document to get it, and the only other
reference to [IPS03] is in Section 2.16 where it is noted that the
submission rules are under revision.  [IPR03] currently isn't cited,
and the only place where it seems necessary is in Section 2.16 where
it is noted that the intelectual property rules are under revision,
so the same comment would apply to it.


There are also the following editorial nits:

1.) On page 16, 2nd paragraph, there is an apparent formatting error
in the citation.  This is the suggested correction:

OLD:
           The statement defining rights in contributions policy is
           under revision at this time.  [IPS03].
                                      ^^^
NEW:
           The statement defining rights in contributions policy is
           under revision at this time [IPS03].
                                      ^

2.) On page 16, first paragraph under "Rights to Technology" bullet,
it seems that there should be a reference to [IPR03].  This is the
suggested correction:

OLD:
           An RFC may describe technology -- e.g., a protocol or other
           technical specification -- that is subject to intellectual
           property right (IPR) claims (normally, through patents.)  The
           present rules for this case are contained in RFC 2026
           Sections 10.3.2, 10.3.3, and 10.4(A,B,D).  These rules are
           under revision at this time.
NEW:
           An RFC may describe technology -- e.g., a protocol or other
           technical specification -- that is subject to intellectual
           property right (IPR) claims (normally, through patents.)  The
           present rules for this case are contained in RFC 2026
           Sections 10.3.2, 10.3.3, and 10.4(A,B,D).  These rules are
           under revision at this time [IPR03].
                                      ^^^^^^^^

(Note that [IPR03] is not otherwise cited in the document.)

3.) On page 24, Section 4.3, there is an incorrect section cross-
reference.  This is the suggested correction:

OLD:
      The Copyright Notice section consists of the statement, "Copyright
      (C) The Internet Society (date).  All Rights Reserved." and is
      required.  The Full Copyright Statement described in Section 4.12
      must also appear at the end of the document.                 ^^^^
NEW:
      The Copyright Notice section consists of the statement, "Copyright
      (C) The Internet Society (date).  All Rights Reserved." and is
      required.  The Full Copyright Statement described in Section 4.9
      must also appear at the end of the document.                 ^^^


Thanks,

Mike Heard