[rfc-i] draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt

Henrik Levkowetz henrik at levkowetz.com
Tue Jan 25 17:05:45 PST 2005


on 2005-01-25 11:59 pm Bob Braden said the following:
>   *> 
>   *> Page 33 (near the bottom) gives a version of the full copyright
>   *> text which contains " and at www.rfc-editor.org" to be used for
>   *> individual submissions -- that added text being the sole difference
>   *> from the usual full copyright boilerplate.
>   *> 
>   *> Henrik Levkowetz' idnits program does not recognize that variant
>   *> of the copyright text, and apparently the IETF Secretariat is
>   *> rejecting (individual submission) drafts with the recommended
>   *> version.
>   *> 
>   *> Has the RFC Editor coordinated with the IETF Secretariat and
>   *> with Henrik regarding the copyright boilerplate?
> 
> This variant was necessary to make things right, and it has been
> coordinated with the power structure of the IETF.  The revised BCP 79
> that will be published soon will include it.  At that time, hopefully
> Henrik will make the necessary change to his check.

I've been aware of the coming revision of 3667 and the accompanying update
of 3668 for quite some time, but found it most prudent to wait till they
were actually published before I updated idnits.  If this is causing trouble
somehow, I can certainly do an earlier update, to a version which accepts
both forms of the boilerplate.

When we moved over from 2026 to 3667 boilerplate I tried to synchronise
a stricter idnits check with the gradually stricter application of 3667/
3668 by the secretariat.  I'll try to do the same this time.


> The relationship between boilerplate that the IETF requrires on
> Internet Drafts (and which is presumably what Henrik should be
> checking)

Yes, that was the intention :-)

	Henrik

> and the boilerplate that is required on RFCs is confusing,
> frankly.  It would not be surprising that there is confusion.  But
> presumably this confusion is created to make more work for lawyers.
> 
> There are definite limits to the usefulness of fully automatic
> checks, given the complexity of the real world.  Sometimes I suspect
> that limit is being exceeded.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list