Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions

Peter Saint-Andre <> Mon, 04 June 2012 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F9D21F8522; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.851
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.252, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9MGx0AX6T-3n; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F41111E807F; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E647F400A4; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:21:30 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:04:45 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <014901cd4294$e6ba1440$b42e3cc0$>
In-Reply-To: <014901cd4294$e6ba1440$b42e3cc0$>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:, 'The IESG' <>,, "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:04:48 -0000

On 6/4/12 2:59 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi Murray,
> Sorry for a delayed reply...
>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational
>> document, modulo my two issues for discussion below.
>> Major Issues:
>> 1. Should this not be a BCP?  The polk draft describes ways to encourage
>> compliance, while this one talks about penalties for non-compliance.  That
>> seems too severe for Informational status, while the polk draft can 
>> probably get away with it.
> My thinking was that this does not define any new process and doesn't even
> recommend their use. It just makes sure people remember the options exist.
> Barry seems to think "not a BCP" as well.
> Maybe we leave this to the IESG?

Hi Adrian,

In draft-polk-ipr-disclosure we added the following paragraph:

   By intent, this document does not claim to define best current
   practices; instead, it suggests strategies that ADs, WG chairs, and
   WG secretaries might find useful.  With sufficient use and
   appropriate modification to incorporate the lessons of experience,
   these strategies might someday form the basis for documentation of
   best current practices.

Something similar might be appropriate for your I-D as well.


Peter Saint-Andre