Re: [auth48] [Cluster456] AUTH48 Questions: RFCs 9280 - 9283 (draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model, draft-rsalz-2028bis, draft-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026, draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter)

[Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>]

Peter and Brian,

Thank you for addressing the cluster-wide questions. We will update the documents in the cluster accordingly.

Brian, thank you also for letting us know that you did not receive 1) the original email with the cluster questions and 2) the initial AUTH48 message for RFC-to-be 9283. This has happened for several other authors as well, and we are looking into the problem. If you encounter this again, please report it to [e-mail].

Thank you,
RFC Editor/rv



> On Jun 18, 2022, at 1:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 1) I concur with Peter.
> 
> 2) I did not receive the original message, nor did I receive the AUTH48 message for RFC-to-be 9283.
> 
> This is a weird bug. A few weeks ago I similarly did not receive an errata confirmation message. For some reason, whatever magic at the rfc-editor site generates automatic messages no longer works for my address. Who would be the right contact for finding and fixing this?
> 
> (I will fish that AUTH48 message out of the archive and reply to it.)
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 19-Jun-22 06:08, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 6/17/22 11:26 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> <snip/>
>>> 2) We see the following forms in this cluster:
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor Function - draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-13
>>> RFC Editor function - draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter-09
>>> 
>>> Is one form preferred? Note that RFCs 8728, 8729, and 8730 use "RFC Editor
>>> function" (lowercase "function").
>> Let's use lowercase "function" as in the older RFCs.
>>> 3) We see the following expansions for LLC in the cluster in the context
>>> of "IETF LLC":
>>> 
>>> Limited Liability Company - draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-13
>>> Limited Liability Corporation - draft-rsalz-2028bis-07
>>> 
>>> We have updated to "Limited Liability Company" as that is what we see in past
>>> RFCs (e.g., 8728, 8729, and 8730) and in documents such as
>>> https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF-LLC-Agreement.pdf.
>> Agreed.
>>> 4) Should instances of "the Trust" read "the IETF Trust"? Or will this existing text be clear for readers?
>>> 
>>> Original (draft-rsalz-2028bis-07):
>>>     The principles for the copyright licenses granted to and from the
>>>     Trust are described in [IPRRIGHTS1] and [COPYRIGHT], and the licenses
>>>     themselves are in the Trust Legal Provisions
>>>     (https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/).
>>>     ...
>>>     The Trust also currently owns IANA's domain names and trademarks
>>>     through an agreement with the IANA clients.
>>>     ...
>>>     The Trustees that govern the Trust are selected from the IETF
>>>     community, as described in [TRUSTEES] and the rationale given in
>>>     [TRUSTRAT].
>> All of that text is from Section 3.1, which is entitled "The IETF
>> Trust"; thus I think context makes the meaning clear. However, in the
>> second and third paragraphs it might be slightly better to change "the
>> Trust" to "the IETF Trust" (on the principle of using the full name on
>> first use in a paragraph).
>>> Original (draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-13):
>>>     *  The IETF Trust, which approves that the boilerplate correctly
>>>        states the Trust's position regarding rights and ownership
>> That seems fine because the context of the sentence makes the meaning clear.
>>>     ...
>>>     It is left to the Trust to
>>>     specify exactly how this shall be clearly indicated in each document.
>> This is from Section 6.1, which is entitled "Procedures Request of the
>> IETF Trust"; thus I think contenxt again makes the meaning clear, but as
>> above changing this one instance to "IETF Trust" would be fine with me.
>> Peter
>