Subject: RE: idnits v1.63

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:19 -0400

Bill Fenner writes...

>   The simplification that Henrik mentions is that the boilerplate must
> now exactly match that in RFC 3978 / 1id-guidelines, since that's what
> the lawyers and the IPR WG OK'd; previously it was considered OK for
an
> author to change, e.g., the "he or she" in the template to "he" on a
> document with only male authors, or the "each author" to "the author"
> on a document with only one author.

I can't imagine that an attorney who was asked to review the IPR
boilerplate would not approve each of the versions to accommodate the
gender and number of authors, assuming that someone were to ask the
question in that fashion.  In my experience, "flexibility" problems laid
at the feet of legal counsel are often, in fact, a failure to ask the
right questions of counsel in the first instance.  :-)

-- Dave

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:14:56 +0200

> right questions of counsel in the first instance.  :-)

Possibly, but the approved BCP is the approved BCP, and its language
was carefully written to cover all cases.

     Brian

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:43:56 -0600

Hi,

The BCP language is the most broad.  It covers all possible 
combinations of authors and prevents potential problems if a single 
author then adds an additional author and forgets to update the 
(modified) boilerplate.

Remember that we are not creating one document that legal needs to 
review, we are creating a ONE boilerplate to put in EVERY document, and 
to prevent screw ups, it needs to be used consistently everywhere.  
Multiple choices where you don't need them is just asking for trouble.

thanks,
-rohan