[Idr] Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer-10

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 at 10:41, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Roman,
>
> Thanks for the review and comments. I've uploaded version -11 to address
> your comments. Please see detailed answers inline below.
>
> Thanks,
> Yingzhen
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 8:48 AM Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm swapping with John and stepping in as the responsible AD for
>> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer.  I performed an AD review on
>> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer-10.  Thanks for this document.  My
>> feedback is as follows:
>>
>> ** idnits reports:
>>
>>   -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
>>      have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If
>> you
>>      have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to
>> grant
>>      the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can
>> ignore
>>      this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378
>> disclaimer.
>>      (See the Legal Provisions document at
>>      https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
>>
>> Have the original authors been contact or should the alternative
>> boilerplate be used?
>>
>
> [Yingzhen]: updated to use "pre5378Trust200902".
>


I am not sure that’s needed. As far as I can tell idnits is being too
conservative in this instance.


Multiple updates to RFC 4271 have been performed over the last few years
with the trust200902, where one or two sentences were copied to indicate
the “new text” insertion point, for example RFC 8212.


I’m also under the impression the original authors granted the IETF Trust
some rights.


I’d prefer if we change the boilerplate back.


Kind regards,


Job