[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights
--On 28. oktober 2003 23:04 -0500 Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-08:
DISCUSS:
In section 5.2, the special rules for MIB or PIB modules are
discussed. ASN.1 modules should be explicitly listed too;
however, ASN.1 modules do not require any handling by IANA. In
this way, ASN.1 modules are different than MIB and PIB modules.
Also, some documents include programs or scripts. These are
intended to be copied from the RFC.
I think ASN.1 modules are covered by "other cases".
The text in question is:
In the cases of MIB or PIB modules and in other cases where the
Contribution includes material that is meant to be extracted in order
to be used, the following should be appended to statement 5.2 (a) or
5.2 (b):
We also have C code, ABNF grammar definitions, LDAP definitions and more -
I don't think we need to be exhaustive.
In section 5.6, the document calls for the inclusion of a URL
to obtain full for full legal notices. I see this as quite
different than referencing a section in an RFC since the content
of the referenced web page can be changed after publication.
That was intentional. This version is used for the case where IANA may
change the content of the MIB after RFC publication; it's not inconcievable
that the copyright rules that IANA uses for dealing with such updated
modules could change over time, so referring to an RFC section would be
inappropriate.
Note: I think the sentence after that deserves an RFC Editor note; it says:
Substitute "PIB" for "MIB" in the statement for PIB modules.
which gives us inadequate leeway for the case of C code or ASN.1 modules -
the RFC Editor note should say (my suggestion):
OLD:
Substitute "PIB" for "MIB" in the statement for PIB modules.
NEW:
For material that is not a MIB, substitute "MIB" with an adequate
identifier for the material.