[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Comments on draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis
We have revision 7 on our next telechat agenda.
I know that Mike HEard had gobe through serious and detailed
review. So I checked with him.
Seems that not all of his concerns have been addressed or
answered. So whose task is this? Harald, or RFC-Editor?
Probably RFC-Editor, right? Or do you want me to evaluate
which are serious enough for me to raise a "discuss" ??
Thanks,
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
Sent: zondag 7 september 2003 10:47
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Subject: Re: FW: FYI: draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis to agenda
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> [Since] you had been looking at this....
> Pls do send any comments you may have to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
> At Fri, 05 Sep 2003 16:10:13 -0700, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >
> > FYI:
> > The RFC Editor has decided that they want to publish
> > draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis as Informational, rather than BCP.
> >
> > So it no longer requires the formal approval of the IESG.
> >
> > I've placed it on the next IESG telechat agenda, so that we can say "we
> > have no problems with this being published" (or tell the RFC Editor what
> > problems, if any, we have with it).
Bert,
Thank you for giving me another chance to comment. In fact I have
some outstanding comments on the -06 version -- see the attached
e-mail messages -- that have not been addressed in -07. This
includes some issues of substance as well as editorial stuff (such
as a reference to the non-existent section 4.12).
The issues of substance boil down to this: if it is the intent of
the RFC Editor to have rfc2223bis be in sync with the recently
posted IPR WG drafts
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-07.txt
draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-11.txt
then rfc2223bis needs more work. In particular, submission-rights
alters the form (though not the substance) of the notices that go in
RFCs. So all the sections parts of rfc2223bis that refer to RFC
2026 section 10 need to be updated if they are to be in sync with
these drafts. On the other hand, if rfc2223bis is supposed to
reflect _current_ policy, then the content is fine, but some small
rewrites are needed so that the above-mentioned drafts can be
demoted to informative references. Details of the changes needed to
accomplish this are in the first of the two attached messages.
While I was looking this stuff over again, I saw that item #2 in the
first of the attached messages failed to mention the typo correction
s/patents.)/patents)./ Here is how it should have looked:
2'.) On page 16, first paragraph under "Rights to Technology"
bullet, it seems that there should be a reference to [IPR03].
There is also a typo. These are the suggested corrections:
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].
^^^^^^^^
Finally, I notice that Section 4 ("Sections in an RFC") says:
[ ... ]
8. Author's Address [Required]
9. Full Copyright Statement [Required*]
[ ... ]
The Body of the Memo will normally contain section numbers (or
Appendix labels). Sections listed as 1-6 and 8-9 are to be
unnumbered. ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^
Despite this policy statement, the Author's Address and Full
Copyright Statement sections are numbered in the recently published
RFC 3591 and RFC 3593 (as well as in the proof of RFC 3595 that you
had me review). Either the text should be modified to match the
actual practice, e.g., change the last sentence above to:
The Body of the Memo will normally contain section numbers (or
Appendix labels). Sections listed as 1-6 are to be unnumbered.
Sections listed as 8-9 may be numbered or unnumbered.
or else the practice should be brought into line with the policy
that is stated in the text.
Thanks,
Mike Heard
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, heard@pobox.com
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: comments on <draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-06.txt>
*>
*> 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
Mike,
Point of information: we have heard from others that publication of
this draft as an RFC should await publication of IPR03 and IPS03;
that is why we used these references. We need to settle this
issue.
Thanks for the further input,
RFC Editor
--- Begin Message ---
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
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
*>
*> 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
Mike,
Point of information: we have heard from others that publication of
this draft as an RFC should await publication of IPR03 and IPS03;
that is why we used these references. We need to settle this
issue.
Thanks for the further input,
RFC Editor
--- End Message ---