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)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 18 June 2022 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5AB8C157B34; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 13:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.981
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.981 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MocY9AsZPdSv; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 13:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8277DC15790B; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 13:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id y6so6963597pfr.13; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 13:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5fmGZW3iGEOKNCYmvCEqm1qrxkCXMwbUJkCsCVEr7HY=; b=TQ7JUfYV2se+oCzqchLmiyLxC2Djox2A22gJ7TXLatOEQmDmZPXSaDCLX7RV0vWgvX Xekpi4PFVX2NVU4gy1gbpbK0dBaZQs4bcl7acuGtpNjvnAGTi+bBFBNM0gODYdIyeGiV Kh2GxJmDR/gNiHFarDfn8MtedY1S79p8qu+RD0ng8rL9jND84ySFPFfg3djLGZ5rzEwo dFCdVBchtL+JWXY/Pcwt3ks2+wxGyQUeNqrjWSdoq6h+a2FBCBV1EVx5cJydYeppghcs 8EoiMnETbGt28tYwZP/PIwEFs7tbbP00wE/XfUANhsMeRQ3TQHym1DHnePL3SYri52Tz GWEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5fmGZW3iGEOKNCYmvCEqm1qrxkCXMwbUJkCsCVEr7HY=; b=nBv2UtZGBAlRK2L02bzFMQmmSBQgbJaTza1rxXrJnIBF626+awPCTbw/gTv1ms+CZ3 Gf4WeMAbCKVDrJ7RIGcIraZ9AksUPzjh6MtEU6Do/sMa3oUhoA0llRhJSWE1DeJIbMQr /IieiDzs7vjozEfd3jv+bjiDkwTkODDPJi6HxnwefVy+d3o2mQOOkm4wsW+RJ8yXn7Ut U8qDrtHSVO5VnpyMz6ITD8i5no9w2TVi8mU8/0V9GH2VqWpa+1RaDPwdoVVgVXHL9By2 0mq85g8ktiHrPkhzKNVKlvh5qpZea8MRwfN5c9/Ik76jPNnazickEopSkLLDFB/ZZ/o2 NDlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/JR+r91DbHGbWNSUslL9lI7PgL4iEH/QLHraW9C+kkRjPm0HAo hV2GvHN2Yo50sYdwyAKibQg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sSEwPxZ0Q8fbxIrsSuG6YODBG+Mg5OU28/ji3o+xfCnC06doaFxqs0K7p1PsJhw7TeZg4s1Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1482:b0:51c:6134:de1a with SMTP id v2-20020a056a00148200b0051c6134de1amr16941633pfu.31.1655585390712; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 13:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPV6:2406:e003:1124:9301:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1124:9301:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y14-20020a170902d64e00b0016397da033csm5770760plh.62.2022.06.18.13.49.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Jun 2022 13:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e5f12085-a1e2-19a6-cd92-1bccf889902c@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2022 08:49:43 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, rsalz@akamai.com, br@brianrosen.net
Cc: iab@ietf.org, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
References: <20220618052657.5B652C88D8@rfcpa.amsl.com> <7841f7c1-40e6-cdab-2108-ea58a5350b9e@stpeter.im>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7841f7c1-40e6-cdab-2108-ea58a5350b9e@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/xOytJMMjm4wx8vGzRNcOp7uhsek>
Subject: 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)
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2022 20:49:55 -0000

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, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org 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