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

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

> I might ask you why the last statement couldn't read "... other than to 
> publish as an RFC"?  I.e., why do you include an option that prevents 
> publication??

Long story. Bottom line is there are times when folk may want to
publish an ID, but not provide any rights other than to publish an
ID. There are very few cases in practice where this is needed.

The second statement is the one that was designed for the case where
someone wants to publish and RFC, but wants to retain change control
on the document.

For the longer story, look at draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-06.txt.

BTW, do you have an alternate email address for your co-author? (I'm
getting bounces.)

THomas


> > > 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


> Frank Quick
> office   +1-858-658-3608 fax +1-858-651-1940
> portable +1-619-890-5749
> paging   fquick@pager.qualcomm.com
> RSA: 29EA D619 31F2 B4D3  8815 3D59 4340 FA43
> D-H: 2A24 131C D38F 12E6 4D6A  46EE 8BBF B50A 754E F63D