Subject: Checking of boilerplate for Internet-Drafts (fwd)

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:23:13 +0200

Just a reminder.... this change in procedure is in effect as of today.

                      Harald

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: 20. september 2004 11:10 -0400
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: IETF Announcement list <[email-masked]>
Subject: Checking of boilerplate for Internet-Drafts

Hello,

A bit before the August IETF, we announced that it was time to use the new
boilerplate from RFC 3667 in internet-drafts, and instructed the
secretariat to  heck that boilerplate.
Due to some confusion, and the impending meeting, we asked them to stop
checking after a while.

But we have to move on.... it is now almost a year since RFC 3667 was
published, and the legal issues that the document was set to address ARE
important to the continued operation of the IETF.

I have therefore instructed the secretariat to check some items of the
boilerplate again, starting from September 28, 2004.

On the particular issue of the boilerplate that got changed between RFC
3667  and the "fixed" draft-ietf-ipr-subm-rights-fix, I have asked them to
check that   statement is present, and that it contains words that indicate
that it was  intended to be a conformant boilerplate - we will make those
instructions  tighter once draft-ietf-ipr-subm-rights-fix is published, but
not now.

Instructions for making conformant drafts can be found at the usual URL:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt

Pay particular attention to the section "Notices required in
internet-drafts".

(Note: Any recent version of xml2rfc should be compatible with these rules,
provided you use the "rfc ipr=full3667" directive)

If the secretariat finds a violation of the rules, the secretariat is to
return the wording of the violated rule to the submitter; this should
eliminate  ambiguity about WHAT is wrong with a submission.

With the hope of being able to go forward without worrying,

                            Harald

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:35:44 +0100

There is all sorts of confusion about the new IPR boilerplate
with various interpretations submitted to our WG.

Is there an example draft that I can use as a definitive
template?

- Stewart

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:54:04 +0200

try draft-ietf-ipr-subm-rights-fix-00.

If that one's got it wrong, we're all in trouble.....

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:35:14 -0700

>> If that one's got it wrong, we're all in trouble.....

	Harald/all,

	Why is this so hard? And why do we have to rip it out of
	some other draft? It seems like we could just publish
	the "Status of the Memo" and "Full Copyright Statement"
	boilerplate somewhere (I'd like to have this so I could
	auto-update my nroff stuff).  So is that we don't have
	authoritative boilerplate? If not, why not? If so, why
	don't we just publish it somewhere? 

	Best regards,

	Dave

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:50:41 +0200

--On 28. september 2004 07:35 -0700 David Meyer <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 	authoritative boilerplate? If not, why not?

Lack of a round tuit.

Seriously - the secretiarat can't do it (they don't know NROFF worth 
nothing, and don't dare to breathe without explicit orders where IPR rules 
are concerned), the IETF chair is doing other stuff, the IPR WG chair is 
doing other stuff, the document editor is using xml2rfc.

So why don't you just do it?

If you generate some good-looking boilerplate, it may be a smaller task to 
get the document editor to check them and the secretariat to accept them 
than to generate them myself - although I sometimes doubt that too; it is 
NOT the case that everything I ask for happens instantly.

It's needed. But it isn't done.

                      Harald

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:05:39 -0700

>> doing other stuff, the document editor is using xml2rfc.

	OK, understand that. BTW, its not that anyone is asking
	for the boilerplate in any particular format (other than
	ascii text, I suppose). It's more a question of "what is
	the canonical boilerplate" that causes the thrashing.

>> So why don't you just do it?

	I must admit that I agree, i.e., I've begun using xfc2xml
	for new drafts (for this and other reasons, as you point
	out above). However, converting the old stuff (which
	still requires updates) would be quite a bit of work
	(which I also agree still might be less). 

>> It's needed. But it isn't done.

	Gotcha. Thanks for the update.

	Best regards,

	Dave