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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 22 May 2012 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2838D21F854A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MQ5aP-rAj61n for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C4321F851B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id D7V81j0010ZaKgw017V88Z; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:29:14 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=MOXiabll c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=tW-MbUlgjnYA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=b6nfwRhkAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=MyGv9lGy6Q9Q_txqXdIA:9 a=VCJtbqagdy6BOqjxSGkA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=b3BTyJyJP9abWqdYutoA:7 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:29:08 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "appsdir@ietf.org" <appsdir@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions.all@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AppsDir review of draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions
Thread-Index: Ac04USeQYm22A7SkRxuKYqnrCiYROg==
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 19:29:07 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C442@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C442exchmbx901corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1337714954; bh=HXytoW7AqNc3HfPbqq4xNE9dTpQqSwDjiNnPkORaynA=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=fKuM+qxk1eWqe6LKxGDKVMAzB5GmpMz8DbTX6SZe99onwoubHoj62nMMv9gnAC6y/ PMpm+2LIHA7uX6GrU3l2jCG1jMOzRaKwbNVObQRfygXpGbn54q+2uDzqgbb1UjQ7PZ VfeuIL1cIKU8PV7stoA6FObZlREUZpORiHIqCGFI=
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 19:30:44 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate>).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-farresnickel-ipr-sanctions
Title: Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy
Reviewer: Murray S. Kucherawy
Review Date: May 22, 2012
IETF Last Call Date: ends June 4, 2012
IESG Telechat Date: not scheduled

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.

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.

1. Section 1, second-last paragraph: There should be a comma after [RFC3683].

2. Section 1, last paragraph: There should be a comma after "but important".

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

4. Section 2.4, last paragraph needs a period at the end.

5. Section 3: s/smooth-running/smooth running/

6. Section 4, bullet b: Add a comma after "private".

7. Section 4, bullet j: Missing an ending period.

8. Appendix A: s/last calls be held/last calls been held/