Re: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> I'd still prefer s/the largest/a/ or s/the largest/a large/ or similar.

I suggest that J.D. leave it as it is, and let the IESG change it if
they think it should be changed.  An RFC Editor note posted after the
telechat should take care of it, if that's what they decide, and Pete
is aware of the point.

> Others asked about the "non-derivative" blurb, and maybe I missed the
> answer for these questions.  What is the idea?  Clearly modifying the
> RFC while still claiming that it is a MAAWG document without consent
> of the MAAWG makes no sense.  This doesn't need extraneous legalese.

That is standard boilerplate, settled on by the IETF a couple of years
ago.  It's not changing, and it's out of J.D.'s control.

It also doesn't stop anyone from doing what's intended, here, which is
citing this document from another, and specifying the ways in which
the other document differs from this one.  What it's meant to prevent
is for someone to copy the document and change a paragraph here or
there.

The changes we're talking about making, to the abstract, intro,
acknowledgments, and references, are in the IETF-specific portions
that J.D. and MAAWG put there.  Those changes can be made with J.D.'s
and/or MAAWG's agreement, without altering the fact that the body of
the document is a re-publication of the MAAWG document.

> Please keep the "codify",

As with the other point, I suggest that J.D. leave it as "codify", and
let the IESG change it if they think it's necessary.  There were two
suggestions brought up in last call ("codify" and "document"), and no
clear consensus one way or the other.

Barry