Re: Proposed New Note Well

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Tue, 22 March 2016 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@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 C30C912D7A3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ag4E8JIiILUG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x230.google.com (mail-qg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230]) (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 DB9B812D1A6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id u110so183666805qge.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=++Xm85tSZDPZh3CZ/EQaJb7Yh1KF00QWc7l3cAmVSzU=; b=vSg8LiwFslZY89c/Ml9lCKuxmGaeANNtngFRxxpL1LTF6WVgHKadoQe0wUwkK9y/P4 mnjqnfxSGPSURWosoqXqBQ9wlKDXFmYeDjPppqfz2C8aSi/9B28NCN/uwiAQVWeAw+99 nPmRVP2t+lljFT0GJEuVKDe2wx6BOspwrsGcn5SgOkn80MzfMYLX4LuQgZ2QUCLcub93 +dMb3lC5bwEpySWZUay7RBb+77XjKwCvD3diUu4rlQIVEbfmbR8Z4v6kZYTl+Cs6h4J/ 8R2fxaNUZwAsgdUbGuyjfbx4sA77D2lzpuT8qX0HB+wxz9NMFUfST+USncRkGYAv9kmp zu7w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=++Xm85tSZDPZh3CZ/EQaJb7Yh1KF00QWc7l3cAmVSzU=; b=F/Re1semHJzzGgFj99hhsDFTmxAQwEciu9da3gI4kSTIjifBhxANG+3IyFwF1HA7+O PKHeBxhNv4trCpWr9aNLxbSEmOKzXB5KDKKqAk1W6AbwjVJwtH91gVZjjT4XL4KTTAZb OyRFibahajFuunCLThLfPESJgpBcyDpNmvQWrvU/QW2NdKR2LCvMax/esikRsR3gIcFD O9l8zbP8cKgbRRJIHA303MXtQFFTFZCxu08tdsKQJuHcEMqnS75j2X6eSEl4e3IIRY4U LCG1LyqVDToKr73Dd0zFG3Kpgouf59Dufg0SV/sPFZZIFA6CQv1wvbVUdTY6rtXb2pvQ Pahw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIm06ZCW3DHtajWwmYdClwhPgS4AUawCl2F3pzM8qNSrWtLAWpstZzzK3UwuJdNh5DBQyq9nfhXem9B+g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.32.100 with SMTP id g91mr48924009qgg.47.1458666901984; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.18.193 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56F09C8C.4060104@gmail.com>
References: <20160321165157.31914.47506.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56F09C8C.4060104@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:15:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89KK2w0LRo4vh5hVJx=Ziiah3d3Eyyp0TdkDiv3MkeJBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed New Note Well
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113b387089f4e7052ea65a8c
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mHNca6T5GJl6gX_5zcNyn1vZyxw>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:15:05 -0000

I don't think the note well is all defined as a reminder, but it is a
policy which may have part of it as an advise and reminder. I agree with
Brian that the old version is better but the reminders included in the
proposal is great. So I propose we can add the reminder/advise paragraph to
the old version maybe in numbers  to make it easier as:-

Note Well

This is an abstract of IETF policies in effect of all participations in
IETF. Exceptions may apply, therefore, the IETF's patent policy and the
definition of an IETF "contribution" and "participation" are set forth in
BCP 79; please read it carefully. The following three points are meant to
point you in the right direction to understand your rights.

1- Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication
as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made
within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF
Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as
well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place,
which are addressed to:

   - The IETF plenary session
   - The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG
   - Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working
   group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices
   - Any IETF working group or portion thereof
   - Any Birds of a Feather (BOF) session
   - The IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB
   - The RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function

2- As a reminder:

• By participating in the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes and
  policies.
• If you are aware that any IETF contribution is covered by patents or
  patent applications that are owned or controlled by you or your
  sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in the
  discussion.
• As a participant in any IETF activity you acknowledge that written,
  audio and video records of meetings may be made public.
• Personal information that you provide to IETF will be handled in
  accordance with the IETF Privacy Statement.

3- Definitive information is in the documents listed below and other IETF
BCPs. For advice, please talk to WG chairs or ADs:
​
BCP 9 (Internet Standards Process)
​BCP 25 (Working Group processes)
BCP 25 (Anti-Harassment Procedures)
BCP 54 (Code of Conduct)
​BCP 78 (Copyright)
​BCP 79 (Patents, Participation)
TBD (Privacy)
++++++++++++++++++++

AB

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I could live with this, although I am still happy enough with the old
> version.
>
> > By participating in the IETF,
>
> I think this should say
>
>  By participating in the IETF in person, remotely, or on-line,
>
> > ​BCP 25 (Working Group processes)
> > BCP 25 (Anti-Harassment Procedures)
>
> Why two separate lines, when BCP 9 (6 different RFCs) only gets one line?
>
> Regards
>    Brian
>
>