Subject: Re: When will the updated IPR RFCs be available?

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:11:21 -0800

On Tuesday, January 4, 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>As soon as the WG chair and the AD agree on a resolution to the
>issue raised in the thread marekd "Issue found with BCP 78 version 2".

I haven't been on the mailing list, so I'm looking through the
spam-laden archives; I think Harald is talking about

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg02552.html

Other than 4 replies suggesting a full URL, I don't see any
other messages suggesting that a resolution has been made.

Now I see that the proto-RFCs have been renumbered in the
author's queue, so the RFC-Editor's (apparently premature)
announcement in DC of the new numbers is obsolete.  (see
http://www1.ietf.org/proceedings_new/04nov/slides/plenaryw-2.pdf
slide #3).

What still has to happen for these RFCs to be published?
- The only opinions on the WG list seemed to be for changing
the URL to an absolute one; dunno whether to call that WG
consensus or how things are proceeding behind the
scenes.

- When I was creating a draft 1id-guidelines update for
these new RFCs, I noticed that the RFC-Editor copyright
statements A and B still say "I accept the provisions of ...";
changing these words in section 5.1 seemed to be the whole
point of revising rfc3667 in the first place.  [Normally I wouldn't
suggest a substantive change to a document in the RFC-Editor's
queue but clearly the other open issue is such a change]

- Although it's a relatively minor issue, these *were* publically
announced as RFC 3907/3908; was there a reason to change
the numbers?

I hate to be a party pooper, but it's been 9 months since this
"quick fix" was first published as an I-D where we all promised
to handle it expeditiously.  It's distressing to see this much
delay and change.

Thanks,
  Bill

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:01:35 -0800 (PST)

> to handle it expeditiously.  It's distressing to see this much

Hear, hear!  I, too, am very frustrated at the length of time that
this process has taken.  We would have had a version of the MIB
review guidelines ready for last call back in August 2003 had it not
been for the then-impending changes to the copyright notices and IPR
disclosure rules.  Eighteen months later this is still in a state of
flux.  We need to get the IPR docs nailed down so that the things
that depend on them can proceed.

Mike Heard