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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > 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?
>

Sure.  PSA's suggestion is also reasonable to me.


>
> > 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?
>

Yep.  I was just trying to anticipate what the Editor might want.  Whatever
satisfies their requirements works for me.


>
> > 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.
>

Same here.

Cheers,
-MSK