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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

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

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/