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

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the confirmation. I've updated the draft to use trust200902.

As for which disclaimer to use, this is an IETF wide issue. For long-lived
documents, we need to be able to identify which disclaimer to use.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 11:59 AM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Use trust200902.
>
> The IDR chairs will work with the IESG to figure out how we can get some
> sort of long-lived documentation that the approval exists.
>
> -- Jeff
>
>
> On Jul 1, 2024, at 2:01 PM, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Norman andJob,
>
> I looked at a few RFCs with normative references published before 10
> November 2008, where trust200902 was used instead of pre5378Trust200902.
> How do we know which one should be used?
>
> Thanks,
> Yingzhen
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 6:52 PM Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
>