Re: [OPS-AREA] [MIB-DOCTORS] FW: IESG Statement on Copyright

["C. M. Heard" <[e-mail]>]

Other than the copyright text that goes in MIB modules, the only 
issues that I know of that we all agreed were actually issues are 
the errata now on the RFC Editor site.  Attached is an e-mail 
message on this subject sent to David Harrington and Bert Wijnen 
earlier this year.

In my archives I found a discussion that tooks place between 16 Oct 
2005 and 4 Jan 2006 as to whether RFC 4181 should be listed as 
updating STD 58 (RFCs 2578, 2579, and 2580), as suggested by Alfred 
Hoenes.  We decided that the answer was NO, but in the process there 
was an inconclusive discussion as to whether the MUSTs in 4181 that 
go beyond the requirements of STD 58 (there are some in sec. 4.6.4) 
ought to be SHOULDs instead.  The subject lines in the relevant 
threads are "RFC 4181 indeed updates RFC 2578..2580" and "Erratum 
for RFC 4181".  If it's too much of a pain to search the mib-doctors 
archive, I can make the 28 messages that I saved from those threads 
available as a Unix mbox file.

Mike Heard

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Nothing as ordered as we would it to be. I remember discussions having
> started a few times but we need to go back into the MIB Doctors
> archives. There are also three verified errata (editorial stuff). 
> 
> Dan
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 3:55 PM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: C. M. Heard; MIB Doctors (E-mail); OPS Area (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] [MIB-DOCTORS] FW: IESG Statement on Copyright
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 02:48:03PM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > 
> > > There are a number of issues that gathered around 4181 that would 
> > > deserve attention if a willing editor is found.
> > 
> > Do we have a list of those issues somewhere?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> > Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> > 
> 

--- Begin Message ---

Hello David,

I looked in my mail archive and the only RFC 4181 errata that I 
found were in the attached message from 1 Nov 2005.  These, as it 
happens, have been posted by the RFC Editor, contrary to what I said 
below.  After so long away from the subject my memory of it is 
failing :-(

I do have some vague recollections of some other stuff that came up 
when we discussed the RFC 4181 update to recognize the IETF Trust 
(which became RFC 4841), but I can't find anything in my records.  
Bert once volunteered to convert the doucment in to xml2rfc format, 
and I sent him some errata that **may** have contained more than 
those in the attached message -- but I'm not sure.

Bert, if you have anything lying around that might help please 
forward it to David.

Thanks,

Mike

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, David Harrington wrote:
> OK. If you send me the errata list, I will try to update the document
> (and convert source to xml2rfc format in the process).
> 
> Thanks,
> dbh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:42 AM
> > To: David Harrington
> > Cc: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
> > Subject: RE: Does another RFC4181 update need to be done?
> > 
> > I have the nroff source for the draft that was approved for 
> > publication.  That source does not include the changes made by the 
> > RFC, nor any subsequently reported errata (and not all of the ones 
> > reported by me and Alfred Hoenes were posted on the RFC Editor 
> > site).  There is no xml2rfc source.
> > 
> > Let me know if you want what I have.  Probably the most accurate way
> 
> > to do the update would be to start from the RFC text and the errata.
> 
> > I kept a list of errata that I could dig out for you.  I did that 
> > once for Bert.
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, David Harrington wrote:
> > > Do you have the sources?
> > > I might find time to do a quick update.
> > > 
> > > dbh 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 1:51 AM
> > > > To: David Harrington
> > > > Cc: Dan Romascanu; Ron Bonica; Bert Wijnen (IETF)
> > > > Subject: Re: Does another RFC4181 update need to be done?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes it does -- but I don't have the time to do it.
> > > > 
> > > > It was a mistake (IMHO) to ever put any IPR stuff into 4181.  It
> > > > delayed the document by 1.5 years, waiting for the IPR WG to get
> > > > done with RFCs 3978 and 3979, and those docs have now been updated 
> > > > twice now.  If 4181 is ever rewritten and reissued, it should point 
> > > > to the legend instruction URLs -- which, one hopes, will be more
> > > > stable than the actual copyright text.
> > > > 
> > > > Mike Heard
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, David Harrington wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does another RFC4181 update need to be done?
> > > > > See attached.
> > > > > 
> > > > > dbh
> > > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: RFC Editor [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:12 PM
> > > > > To: Glenn M. Keeni; Pasi Eronen; Tim Polk; Russ Housley
> > > > > Cc: Stacy Burns; Chris Lonvick; David Harrington; RFC Editor
> > > > > Subject: [ADs] Re: AUTH48 [SB]: RFC 5427
> > > > > <draft-ietf-syslog-tc-mib-08.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
> > > > > 
> > > > > Glenn, Pasi, and Tim,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does the copyright in the MIB need to be updated?  The text currently
> > > > > reads:
> > > > > 
> > > > >     DESCRIPTION
> > > > >         "The MIB module containing textual conventions for syslog
> > > > >          messages.
> > > > > 
> > > > >          Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2009).  This version of
> > > > >          this MIB module is part of RFC 5427; see the RFC itself for
> > > > >          full legal notices.
> > > > >         "
> > > > > 
> > > > > The BSD license in the IETF-Trust-License-Policy document states:
> > > > > 
> > > > >    Copyright (c) <insert year> IETF Trust and the persons identified as
> > > > >    authors of the code.  All rights reserved.   
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > 
> > > > > RFC Editor
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:17:30AM +0900, Glenn M. Keeni wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >  I, an author of RFC 5427, am aware of the new copyright notice
> > > > > >  and I do approve this document (RFC 5427) for publication under
> > > > > >  the RFC 5378 copyright notice and legends.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  Thanks and cheers
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Glenn
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Stacy Burns wrote:
> > > > > > > Correction, inline.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > RFC Editor/sb
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >> On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Stacy Burns wrote:
> > > > > > >> Glenn,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As of 10 November 2008, the RFC Editor has been instructed to publish
> > > > > > >> documents with the copyright notice and legends adopted by the IETF
> > > > > > >> by the publication of BCP 78 / RFC 5378.  Please review the new 
> > > > > > >> copyright notice and legends and the text located at 
> > > > > > >> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If you, as an author of RFC 5410, agree with the copyright and
> > > > > > > If you, as an author of RFC 5427 ...
> > > > > > >> legends as defined in RFC 5378, please send us an explicit
> > > > > > >> acknowledgment that you are aware of the new copyright notice and
> > > > > > >> legends and that you approve this document for publication under the
> > > > > > >> RFC 5378 copyright notice and legends.  If all of the authors agree, 
> > > > > > >> we will update RFC 5410 to reflect the new copyright notice as it
> > > > > > >> appears in Item 6b of 
> > > > > > >> http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf, and 
> > > > > > >> continue with the publication process.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> However, if you are unable to agree to publish the document with the
> > > > > > >> new copyright notice and legends, please let us know, and we will
> > > > > > >> delay publication until the issue has been resolved.  The appropriate
> > > > > > >> parties are working to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.  We 
> > > > > > >> plan to update you on the situation and provide an email address
> > > > > > >> (once it is available) where you can send your questions and/or 
> > > > > > >> concerns regarding the new copyright notice and legends.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Please note that document currently available at 
> > > > > > >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5427.txt doesn't reflect the 5378 
> > > > > > >> copyright. You must review it at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> RFC Editor/sb
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

--- Begin Message ---

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Alfred HÎnes wrote:
> > I've [...] observed two minor typos in the text of RFC 4181
> > that migth be worth noting for consideration in the case of
> > any future update to this RFC:
> > 
> > *  The bottom text line of page 29 says:
> > 
> >       " ... .  Two point are worth reiterating:"
> >                        ^^
> >    It should say:
> > 
> >       " ... .  Two points are worth reiterating:"
> > 
> > *  The first line of item 8 in Appendix A, on page 34, says:
> > 
> >       "... -- if the draft does not contains a verbatim copy ..."
> >                                            ^
> >    It should say:
> > 
> >       "... -- if the draft does not contain a verbatim copy ..."
> 
> RFC Editor:
> 
> As document editor, I would like to request than an RFC Erratum be
> created for RFC 4181 listing these errors.  Thanks to Alfred HÎnes
> for pointing them out.

In addition to the above, I have noticed the following formatting
error in the first bullet in Section 4.6.1.1 on p. 14.  The text
in the RFC looks like this:

   - For integer-valued enumerations:

     - INTEGER is REQUIRED; - Integer32, Unsigned32, and Gauge32 MUST
     NOT be used.

and it should look like this:

   - For integer-valued enumerations:

     - INTEGER is REQUIRED;
     - Integer32, Unsigned32, and Gauge32 MUST NOT be used.

I would appreciate it if you would include this item when you create
the erratum for RFC 4181.


Regards,

Mike Heard

--- End Message ---

--- End Message ---