Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-00.txt

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Sorry, I dropped the ball on this document. Due to the way I was using
ID tracker, I wasn't seeing it when looking for documents assigned to
me... (Specifically, it didn't have an area assigned to it, so when I
searched for INT documents, it didn't show up... Sigh.)

But the first thing I notice in the document is:

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in accordance 
   with Section 10 of RFC2026, and the authors do not provide the IETF 
   with any rights other than to publish as an Internet-Draft. 

That is, this document can't even be published as an RFC. Can the
authors please clarify why this boilerplate was chosen and why, e.g.,
the first of the ones below isn't appropriate?

> All Internet-Drafts must begin with ONE of the following three
> statements:
> 
>          This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to
>          all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
> 
>          This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to
>          all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the
>          right to produce derivative works is not granted.
> 
>          This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in
>          accordance with Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not
>          provide the IETF with any rights other than to publish as an
>          Internet-Draft

Is this actually a republication of a TIA standard (in which case
boilerplate 2 might be appropriate)?

Thomas