IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Status of this memo [NOTE WELL]

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Wed, 28 April 2021 00:47 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90833A0909 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 17:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NRmp9q_lqLO9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 17:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-f175.google.com (mail-yb1-f175.google.com [209.85.219.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54B7F3A0906 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 17:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-f175.google.com with SMTP id q192so18022322ybg.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 17:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fzP0nN6z9THrC+Pr85+7KaUTWhaDyEdMPfuhBCpXISs=; b=M274qRGMzhfV28/93hyaGmMRUGsmakJmkbE5KK0GV67g+KErdkSJi20y+FSeK8M7eX 0n0O+v7Evcm+l4TSJ3s5SLvh5dBfyr7hkTRr3JUHwYGxgtcC2SXO0OGU/UxTH7v9zpIR Picj50HdifM1cbP6jx7p0wZxImnblHrI5E8hUpqUpM6MZZGywlg2Ll//mcv1f05JvsGP lqq9usuoxFktXPIG/Ng03NP5fClwF3HiQcKPWtMwgyUu9wa0l8p44EeYW/968sEBoZ3T 7JCAqLCnNnQWx5sI/F5ZFKCr4vFC9NH4lV2Kum0U/od9p+HISQ1O/smDZWzyVPjqZ+px XMyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331ANJJLrqS/a8e6RUoEKF3vBLBem9VGFoDMp9FuvPmtTkUi5Ph yBIhnV0Y1LfABhZyZD5b8M5b6EvFT0gBf/fVpjw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyh1ffHujvDTq+lUHa2kIauoG59xfegn9p6RB2v4/Twf0iOJMq5FL5zJxF4em2msvMs5AyfStSUKpe9qzzm8ZU=
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:585:: with SMTP id l5mr34619138ybp.213.1619570872101; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 17:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <CAMm+LwhZp4iFkr49VFfuqWJTw1oWiTvmJnUUsL-PjwMZUdK2uA@mail.gmail.com> <c5e64540-522f-6147-1e89-08adf054ac99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c5e64540-522f-6147-1e89-08adf054ac99@gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 20:47:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhhejjOQ=LzFSr-YOKOnjvNhc3NwHJF4aQTGa0sFDgZpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of this memo [NOTE WELL]
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000085314105c0fdba19"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ry_6E5vFXz0TBmFs48MnTW_CfRY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 00:47:55 -0000

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 7:13 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28-Apr-21 01:33, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> ...
>
> > Internet-Drafts are documents submitted according to the 'NOTE WELL'
>
> The NOTE WELL is not binding; it's the actual BCPs that control
> intellectual property rules and they are of course directly cited in the
> boilerplate.
>
>
Yea, my point is that the thing boilerplate should start off by making the
statements that are true of the widest number of drafts before making IETF
and IRTF specific statements.

Every draft is subject to the IPR regime. Some are WG working documents,
etc.

I don't particularly like the wording either. But that is the objective.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email