Re: [dispatch] [rfc-i] Advice when converting W3C ED to I-D

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 1:12 PM Rahul Gupta <cxres=
40protonmail.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I am currently in the process of converting a W3C Editors Draft <
> https://cxres.github.io/per-resource-events/protocol/> (previously shared
> on Dispatch) into an Internet Draft for submission with IETF.  There are
> few things which do not translate well, I could not discern from the
> various documents on how to act and would like to seek the group's advice:
>
>    1. In W3C Drafts, we explicitly mark sections as non-normative. For
>    example, sections 1 (introduction) and 2 (design) are non-normative in my
>    proposal. What is the best practice to indicate the same in I-D?
>    Alternatively, how best can I rejig the order of sections in my
>    specification to achieve the same effect.
>    2. There are specific text boxes in W3C specs available for noting
>    "issues" and "advisement". I am unsure what to use and have currently
>    replaced these with <aside>. Is there a better alternative?
>    3. W3C helpfully provides a Security and Privacy Review Questionnaire
>    which in large parts deals with these two considerations. What is the best
>    practice for writing a security considerations section? Should I submit an
>    I-D on a best effort basis with the understanding that WG will help fix
>    this section with their knowledge?
>
>
The answer to this question is: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3552

There is a license issue on which I seek advice:
>
>    1. Over at W3C Solid Community Group, Tim Berners-Lee has insisted on
>    a license for code snippets in specifications that do not require a notice
>    to be attached when copying them from a specification (
>    https://github.com/solid/process/blob/main/solid-cg-charter.md#license 3rd
>    Bullet Point) to allow free use. Is there any possibility of including
>    such an exception to the Revised BSD License made for an I-D?
>
>
This is not a question for this mailing list, but probably for IETF
gendispatch. However, if you are the author of the code, you can of course
publish it separately with any license you please.

-Ekr

> I shall be able to share an I-D version of the specification through
> Github, as soon as some bugs in the tooling (kramdown-rfc) are resolved.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help and advice,
>
> Rahul
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>