IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 06 October 2011 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 7C3F721F8BAD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 21:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.152, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LQYv6nKr288f for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 21:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B7221F8478 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 21:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 22:00:06 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:00:04 -0700
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AcyDnLs7/OCpeojmRZGVD4RX9BxNkQAR/jNA
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C45D9EBD@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111005095058.084390c8@resistor.net> <20111005201843.7357.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20111005201843.7357.qmail@joyce.lan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 04:56:57 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:19 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: sm@resistor.net
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-02.txt> (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC
> 
> >The "no derivative" clause makes it impossible to incorporate the
> >material in this draft in any IETF work.
> 
> Section 3.3 of RFC 5378, on derivative works says:
> 
>    There are two exceptions to this requirement: documents
>    describing proprietary technologies and documents that are
>    republications of the work of other standards organizations.
> 
> It looks to me like the latter clause applies here. RFC 5744 has
> similar language specifically for the Independent stream.

Concur.  I'm in support of publication, as well as the "enough with the nitpicking already" sentiment.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email