[rfc-i] [IAB] [tlp-interest] Boilerplate changes Required for TLP 4.0

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Wed Jan 13 13:42:07 PST 2010


Brian:

The most recent approved changes do not prevent the posting of I-Ds. 
For this reason, I do not understand your comments.

The most recent changes allow non-IETF stream RFCs to include different 
license for code; they rejected the Simplified BSD license that the 
tools team recommended to the Trust for the IETF stream.  I-Ds for these 
streams can be posted using the earlier boilerplate, as they have been 
for the last several months.  When the tools are updated, I-Ds for these 
alternate streams will have alternate boilerplate if they wish to use 
it, but they will not be required to use it to get their I-D posted.

Russ

On 1/13/2010 3:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I don't think the Trust has got the message.
>
> The message is that the grace period needs to be extended until
> the tools are ready, as far as drafts are concerned.
>
> It's fine for the RFC Editor to make these changes in the final
> text, which the authors will accept by saying OK to the AUTH48 ping.
> But seriously expecting drafts to be munged this way, especially during
> the last minute panic before the cut-off dates, is just not OK.
>
> Shall we discuss this on the ietf list?
>
> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 2010-01-14 00:47, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> Some concerns have been raised about tooling issues and boilerplate
>> changes. At present, for example, xml2rfc is not supported, and because
>> of this it is not clear when it will be possible to update it to support
>> the new boilerplate.  However, Alternate Stream documents have been
>> blocked for some time waiting for the new Trust Legal Provisions (TLP),
>> and it was decided to unblock these documents with TLP 4.0 even in the
>> absence of xml2rfc support. (There is an open call for volunteers to
>> support xml2rfc, and I would encourage interested parties to contact
>> Russ Housley.)
>>
>>      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
>>      NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and
>>      "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
>>      RFC 2119.
>>
>> If for any reason the tool of your choice has not been upgraded by the
>> end of the grace period on February 1 then the following two minor
>> changes need to be made to Internet-Draft boilerplates before
>> submission. Note that the changes are different for IETF Stream and for
>> Alternate Stream Documents. The changes for the IETF stream are
>> editorial (as noted by a SHOULD in the text below) and drafts produced
>> by the current tools for that stream are therefore compliant with TLP
>> 4.0.  The changes for the other streams are required (as noted by a MUST
>> in the text below).
>>
>> -----
>>
>> For IETF Stream Documents the following changes SHOULD be made :
>>
>> Change 1 :
>> OLD:
>> This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
>> provisions of BCP 78 and
>> BCP 79.
>>
>> NEW:
>> This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions
>> of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
>>
>> EXPLANATION:
>> Dropped the words "to IETF" as there is some ambiguity with respect to
>> Internet drafts that are not submitted to be published as IETF Stream RFCs.
>>
>> Change 2 :
>>
>> Second : Different Treatment for IETF and non-IETF stream documents
>> regarding potential BSD licenses for code components.
>>
>> OLD:
>> Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD
>> License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions
>> and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License.
>>
>> NEW:
>> Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD
>> License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions
>> and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD
>> License.
>>
>> EXPLANATION: Introduction of the word "Simplified" at the second use of
>> "BSD License" for clarity.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> For Alternate Stream Documents the following changes MUST be made
>>
>> Change 1 :
>> OLD:
>> This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
>> provisions of BCP 78 and
>> BCP 79.
>>
>> NEW:
>> This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions
>> of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
>>
>> EXPLANATION:
>> Dropped the words "to IETF" as there is some ambiguity with respect to
>> Internet drafts that are not submitted to be published as IETF Stream RFCs.
>>
>> Change 2 :
>>
>> OLD:
>> Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD
>> License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions
>> and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License.
>>
>> NEW: This sentence must not be included (note that this text MUST NOT be
>> inserted in the document).
>>
>> EXPLANATION: The BSD license is not available for code components from
>> Alternate Stream documents.
>>
>> Regards
>> Marshall Eubanks
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tlp-interest mailing list
>> tlp-interest at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tlp-interest
>>
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list