Subject: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-00.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:16:40 +0200

People interested in our administrative affairs may want to
look at this draft and comment. I think it's fairly self-explanatory,
and we will want to proceed fairly quickly so that it doesn't
become a critical path item.

     Brian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-00.txt
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:50:01 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: BCP101 Update for IPR Trust
	Author(s)	: B. Carpenter, L. Lynch
	Filename	: draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-00.txt
	Pages		: 6
	Date		: 2005-8-17
	
    This document updates BCP 101 to take account of the new IETF
    Intellectual Property Trust.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-00.txt

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:23:40 +0200

> become a critical path item.

Brian,

I don't see any problems with this in isolation... on the nitpicking side, 
I dislike the passive voice of section 2 "A trust... has been formed". 
Unless one believes in autogenesis of trusts, SOMEONE formed the trust, and 
it/they should be named. ("IASA in cooperation with other parties"?
Also, I believe the term "update to BCP 101" is ill-defined (but then, we 
never worked out the details of whether or not a BCP could have more than 
one document); this is an update to RFC 4071, and the intent is that all 
references to "BCP 101" hereafter should be interpreted as "RFC 4071 as 
amended by this document".
As an update to RFC 4071, I believe it would be better to say which section 
it updates; I believe section 2 of this document should be considered 
inserted before section 3, paragraph 6.
I believe the document will read more cleanly if the words "rather than 
ISOC" are deleted from section 2. If you wish to say anything about how 
material previously thought to be owned by ISOC, a separate section 
("transitional arrangements") could be inserted.

External to the document:
When will the Terms of Reference for the trust (or whatever you call them 
for trusts) be made available to the community?

                       Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:15:29 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I don't see any problems with this in isolation... on the nitpicking 
> side, I dislike the passive voice of section 2 "A trust... has been 
> formed". Unless one believes in autogenesis of trusts, SOMEONE formed 
> the trust, and it/they should be named. ("IASA in cooperation with other 
> parties"?

Sure. The trust will have Settlors and Trustees. We can be a bit more
specific.

> Also, I believe the term "update to BCP 101" is ill-defined (but then, 
> we never worked out the details of whether or not a BCP could have more 
> than one document); this is an update to RFC 4071, and the intent is 
> that all references to "BCP 101" hereafter should be interpreted as "RFC 
> 4071 as amended by this document".

I read the relevant bits of 2026 a couple of times, and I am pretty
convinced that a BCP can only exist as a single RFC (which may or may not
be a bug, but that's what the text seems to say). So this needs to be a
new BCP that updates the RFC 4071 version of BCP 101. You're correct that
it needs to be stated a bit more clearly.

> As an update to RFC 4071, I believe it would be better to say which 
> section it updates; I believe section 2 of this document should be 
> considered inserted before section 3, paragraph 6.

Actually there are number of places in 4071 that are affected; so wherever
it is virtually inserted, it changes a number of sentences.

> ("transitional arrangements") could be inserted.

That material will be in the Trust document itself. It's intensely legal
and would be very tricky to duplicate here.
> When will the Terms of Reference for the trust (or whatever you call 
> them for trusts) be made available to the community?

I've asked the IAOC that question.

    Brian

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:18:36 +0200

> convinced that a BCP can only exist as a single RFC (which may or may not

section 5.1 of 2026 reads:

   A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been
   approved as a BCP is assigned a number in the BCP series while
   retaining its RFC number(s).

which to me suggests multi-RFC BCPs are as fine as multi-RFC STDs.
Apart from that, it would make sense in terms of usability.

Unfortunately there is not yet any precedent but at least two precedents to
the contrary, where the updating or amending RFC received its own BCP number:

	RFC 2827, BCP 38 updated by RFC 3704, BCP 84
	RFC 2418, BCP 25 updated by RFC 3934, BCP 94 (more similar to the case
						      under discussion)

> new BCP that updates the RFC 4071 version of BCP 101. You're correct that

Not the most important issue with this document, but please consider to
make 101 a bundle.

-Peter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:17:38 +0200

Peter,

> Not the most important issue with this document, but please consider to

Thanks for that. There are words earlier in 2026 that seem to imply
one:one correspondence, but if we do it as part of BCP 101 I agree
it's better.

    Brian