Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

"Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Mon, 11 August 2008 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBAD3A6C5B; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE393A6B08 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.314
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.314 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.285, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y8r6idFSj3uY for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.versatel.net (relay.versatel.net [62.250.3.110]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 163A53A68EB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 42681 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2008 20:14:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO BertLaptop) (87.215.199.34) by relay.versatel.net with SMTP; 11 Aug 2008 20:14:49 -0000
Message-ID: <98CA2246DD534DCBBF7FEE196F833AC8@BertLaptop>
From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <D78EAB64AF674E24B2199B2C1DBDA1FE@BertLaptop> <489F13F2.3060707@dcrocker.net> <6F1B41ACCFC0441E8E86CD61B5874A02@BertLaptop> <48A0626E.8060507@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <48A0626E.8060507@dcrocker.net>
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:00:45 +0200
Organization: Consultant
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18000
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

W.r.t.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
Cc: <ietf@ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

... snip a lot ..


>>>> Specific IPR (e.g., patent claims & terms) must not be in an RFC
>>>
>>> The "must" is interesting.  What BCP documents this (entirely 
>>> reasonable,
>>> IMO) requirement?
>>>
>>
>> Does not point 4 4.  Specific IPR (e.g., patent claims & terms) must not 
>> be
>> in an RFC (or Internet-Draft). Any claims must go to the IETF IPR web 
>> page
>> and notice that there is some IPR claim. The mandatory IPR Notice from
>> [RFC3979] (Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF 
>> Technology,"
>> March 2005.) section 5 points readers to the IETF IPR web page. clealry 
>> point
>> you to the basis (RFC3979) ??? The point was/is that some people put one
>> specific IPR claim in the RFC. And such is useless, after the RFC is
>
> Bert, once again, I'm not suggesting the guidance is "wrong", but that it 
> is without substantiation.  It asserts a *requirement* that it seems to 
> have invented.
>
> RFC 3979 says what is to be in an RFC, not what isn't. The Checklist says 
> what isn't.
>

The proble we saw in the IESG (when we started ID_Checklist) was that we saw
A LOT OF I-Ds that requested publication and that DID HAVE SPECIFIC IPR
claims. So we wanted to make it clear to people that such is NOT TO BE DONE.

Just saying that RFC3979 text was to be used seemed not to get through!

>
>>> And so on.
>>>
>>
>> Pls point out all the issues/concerns you have (if you want a personal 
>> email
>
> I did that:  Each and every assertion that says or implies anything more 
> than "it can be helpful to do this" needs to provide a narrow citation for 
> its basis.
>

I means "and so on". If there are more, pls point them out.

Bert

> d/
> -- 
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
>
> 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf