RE: Last Call: draft-reschke-rfc2731bis (RFC 2731 is Obsolete) toInformational RFC

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,
At 08:37 09-09-2009, David Harrington wrote:
>But wait. According to the heading, if approved, this draft will
>obsolete RFC2731. Which are we doing Historic, or Obsolete? (can you
>do both simultaneously?)

There is a subtlety between Obsolete and Historic.

>Is it because the effort to standardize failed? (Did the Initiative
>want to keep editorial control, and when they found out they couldn't
>if it was standard, they took their ball and went home? Is this draft

That's an interesting question.

RFC 5013 has an Informative reference to RFC 2731.

>RFC2731 contains perl code. They are published with this text that
>appears to be a license: "They may be
>    taken and freely adapted for local organizational needs, research
>    proposals, venture capital bids, etc."
>If RFC2731 is obsoleted, does this in any way affect the license and
>the legal rights of implementers of RFC2731? This is not discussed.

This is only a reclassification.  The RFC will still be there.  In my 
opinion (this is not legal advice), it does not affect how the code 
can be used.

>I don't want new boilerplates, but there are a bunch of issues related
>to this document that are simply not discussed. I think this document
>should include (very small) sections that reflect that copyright
>issues have been considered; that authors rights in RFC2731 have been

It's problematic to discuss copyright issues in the document.

>considered; that migration issues for implementers of RFC2731 have
>been considered; that licensing issues for the contained code have
>been considered. None of this has been documented, so a reader cannot
>know whether these have been considered and not documented, or simply
>overlooked.

It's the same stance as for "IPR".

You brought up valid concerns.  I would have some apprehension to put 
them in a draft.

At 10:40 09-09-2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>As far as I recall, I borrowed structure and text from RFC 4794 
>("RFC 1264 Is Obsolete", moving RFC 1264 to *historic*). (Steal with Pride).

I would not steal that RFC as its topic is different from the one you 
are writing about. :-)

>This is a purely administrative RFC. It doesn't define any protocol 
>or format. It just says: "look somewhere else for up-to-date 
>versions". That really does not require Security Considerations.

You could say something along those lines in the Security 
Considerations section.

Regards,
-sm