Re: [Ietf-and-github] [rfc-i] New Version Notification for draft-kwatsen-git-xiax-automation-00.txt

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

I believe the first mentioning of code markers was in the attached email, which was on the IPR WG mailing list on a thread in the context of the copyright RFCs (BCP78).
Stephan


On 2/26/19, 09:25, "Ietf-and-github on behalf of Henrik Levkowetz" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Joel,
    
    On 2019-02-26 18:19, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
    > RFC 5377 section 4.3 calls out that code has different copyright grants 
    > than other parts of the document.  It describes various examples of 
    > code, and then asks the IETF Trust to specify textual marking for code 
    > so that authors can be explicit and can mark things that may not be 
    > obvious by the examples.
    > 
    > So it goes back a lot earlier than 6087.
    > And as far as I know goes back to before there was any tooling support 
    > for the markings.
    
    Indeed.  And later, when there was discussion about possible code markings,
    I proposed that we use the <CODE BEGINS>, <CODE ENDS> introduced by RFC 6087,
    rather than inventing something new.
    
    Regards,
    
    	Henrik
    
    > 
    > Yours,
    > Joel
    > 
    > On 2/26/19 11:52 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
    >> 
    >> 
    >>> The original reason for "CODE BEGINS" etc was for licensing (to 
    >>> clarify that part of the content is considered to be a "code component").
    >> 
    >> 
    >> Perhaps and, if so, then the markers may still have a purpose.
    >> 
    >> That said, I only know the markers coming from 
    >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.2, which came from 
    >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6087#section-3.1.   As the co-chair and 
    >> shepherd for these drafts, I assure you that my limited understanding 
    >> for the original motivation is correct.   It's not intended to have any 
    >> relationship to copyrights, though RFC6087 conflates both a module-level 
    >> copyright (inside the YANG module) and markers (outside the YANG module) 
    >> in Section 3.1, which we de-conflicted in RFC8407.
    >> 
    >> Kent
    >> 
    >> 
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> Ietf-and-github mailing list
    >> [e-mail]
    >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
    >> 
    > _______________________________________________
    > rfc-interest mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
    > 
    
    

--- Begin Message ---

Hi,

> (y)  all IETF legends, legal notices and indications of 
> authorship contained in the original IETF RFC must also be 
> included where more than <one half> of an IETF RFC is 
> reproduced in a single document or series of related 
> documents.


A half seems like rather a high limit; a short RFC can be
almost 50% boilerplate anyway. I realise we need an objective
rule, so can I suggest "one fifth"?

> For ease of reference, Code Components in IETF RFCs may be 
> designated by <LABEL>.


How about ...may be enclosed between the marks "<CODE BEGIN>"
and "<CODE END>" ?

> a. General Notice for Internet-Drafts. The following text 
> must appear <at the beginning> of each Internet-Draft:

and

> c. Copyright and License Notice. The following notice must be
> contained at the beginning of each IETF Document (including
> RFCs and Internet-Drafts):


"At the beginning" is not good enough for automated checkers.
I suggest "on the first page" in both cases.

    Brian
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

--- End Message ---