Subject: Questions on 3667/8 and the current correct order of things...

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:02:17 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Y'all:

So, I revently attempted to convert my first draft into the new boilerplate
text, and I find it confusing to try and juggle all the pieces together,
and make one draft that actually works out of them. Specifically, I don't
understand the order things need to be in, nor what specific wording to
use.

3667/8 don't seem to indicate when the boilerplate in section 5.1 should go
in the draft. The nits state this statement should be at the end of the
draft, but I've seen some drafts with the statement at the beginning. Are
the nits right, or did I miss something in 3667/8?

I think the main problem here is that we have too many documents with too
many different options available, and it's hard to wade through all of
them, and figure out what the right thing to do. There's a sample draft
here:

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/boilerplate.txt

That seems to be current, but seems to have different wording than what's
in 3667/8/etc. I don't really know what anyone should use as their
"definitive" option to building a new RFC currently.

Might I suggest that we have one RFC that covers the entire process,
including each section required or optional, in the right order, all in one
doc, to make this easier, along with a pointer to a sample doc for people
to read? It seems difficult to wade through multiple docs to find every
piece you need, and get it all right.

:-)

Russ

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:46:05 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:02 AM
> Subject: Questions on 3667/8 and the current correct order of things...
...

> understand the order things need to be in, nor what specific wording to

Welcome to the club.  It seems to me that
what's out there now ranges from ambiguous to contradictory.
As an author, reviewer, and WG chair I'm baffled by it all.

...
> piece you need, and get it all right.

Amen to that!
When can we expect RFC 2223bis to reflect all this?

Randy

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:15:44 -0700

I find it odd that the id-guidelines doesn't even mention
the Section 6 of RFC 3667 requirement to add to all I-Ds
either:
  By submitting this Internet-Draft, I accept the provisions of
  Section 3 of RFC 3667.
or
  By submitting this Internet-Draft, I accept the provisions of
  Section 4 of RFC 3667.

Kurt

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:05:19 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

So, the nits state that the first thing the draft must contain is the
boilerplate from 3667, section 5.2. That section doesn't seem to contain
any boilerplate?

The nits also say that the boilerplate from section 5.1 of 3667 must be
after the author's addresses, but all the drafts I've seen using the new
format seem to place it as the first thing in the draft (which also, by the
way, seems out of place, because the wording isn't something I'd start a
draft with at all). Which is it? I'd prefer it be at the end, as it makes
more sense there, bundled with the other IPR statements, as the nits imply
it should be.

Finally, I note that all the new drafts I'm seeing contain two copyright
statements, one at the beginning, and the one mandated by 3667 at the end
of the draft. In fact, 3667 clearly states the one mandated at the end is
the only one that must be included, no other ones may be included. I don't
think two copyright statements make any sense anyway, it should either be
at the beginning or the end, not both. Which is it?

*sigh*

Russ