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

"Adrian Farrel" <> Mon, 04 June 2012 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4A711E8106; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5CRN33ReseWb; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0196F11E807F; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q54KxGAg024610; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 21:59:16 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q54KxD57024588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Jun 2012 21:59:14 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <>,,,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:59:12 +0100
Message-ID: <014901cd4294$e6ba1440$b42e3cc0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQL7zXuqY6u57WJZ2IF/5Dzq5Xpj1ZSNik9Q
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: 'The IESG' <>
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 20:59:27 -0000

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?

> Minor Issues:
> 1. Are all the URL references in here permanent?  I’m not sure about things
> like [URLIESGIPR], for example, since it points to a wiki.

I am not sure the URLs must be permanent. Sure we would like them to be "stable"
but the RFC Editor seems to say that a URL is acceptable where no better
reference can be found. Additionally, this is "only" an Informative reference.

Can we leave this, and fix it if the RFC Editor complains?

> Nits:

Useful and accepted, except...

> 3. Section 2.4: s/to be clearly understood/to be understood clearly/

This is largely stylistic and a lot of stuff is said about split infinitives.
Here I intended to stress clarity not understanding.
I am sure the RFC Editor will apply house style.