Subject: In Search of a Revised Notewell

From: "tom p." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:33:38 +0100

As the minutes trickle out for IETF99, I see repeated references to a
revised Notewell, one of which asks us to read RFC8127.

Looking at the RFC Editor's FTP site, I find a gap between RFC8126 and
RFC8128.

Looking at the RFCINDEX thereon, I see a similar gap.

Searching the announcement list for RFC 8127, I get no matches.

Clearly the WG Chairs have been given a briefing but is this something
that those of us who only contribute via e-mail should be aware of? If
so, how?  I cannot recall seeing anything on WG lists about this, until
I started reading the minutes, since January 2016.

Tom Petch

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 07:45:30 -0400

Tom,

The revised Note Well references 8179, not 8127. See
https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html , which is where I lifted the
Note Well text for my chairs slides.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 07:50:55 -0400

https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html <https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html>

> On Aug 9, 2017, at 4:33 AM, tom p. <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 08:59:59 -0400

On 8/9/17, 4:33 AM, "ietf on behalf of tom p." <[email-masked] on

>I started reading the minutes, since January 2016.

I recall seeing an announcement from Scott Bradner that certain IPR rules
had been updated. I don’t remember seeing a broad community announcement
with the banner, “The Note Well advisory has changed.”

https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html

I presume that the new version was used in meeting registration.

Lee

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:14:28 -0500

Under the category of "mistakes were made" ...

> I presume that the new version was used in meeting registration.

I assume so as well, although of course I didn't notice at the time.

True confession - I did the slides for TSVAREA at IETF 99, and didn't think
to change the RFC number on my Note Well slide.

It's not like I didn't know about RFC 8179. According to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8179/ballot/, I BALLOTED YES WITH
COMMENTS on it. But that didn't translate into me changing my Note Well
slide ... making the change to my IETF 100 slide deck now.

So, Tom, thanks for asking about this, and helping the rest of us catch up.

Spencer, who apparently isn't getting enough caffeine in his diet Pepsi, in
spite of many valiant efforts to do so ...

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:35:32 -0400

Spencer,

Before each meeting I always recopy the Note Well text into my chairs
slides, because there just might be a change in the wording, and it’s
easier to copy than to check.

Cheers,
Andy

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> True confession - I did the slides for TSVAREA at IETF 99, and didn't
> think to change the RFC number on my Note Well slide.
>
> Spencer, who apparently isn't getting enough caffeine in his diet Pepsi,
> in spite of many valiant efforts to do so ...
>

---

From: "Mehmet Ersue" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:01:24 +0200

Without knowing the URL one can always download the current version of Note Well slide from:

WG Chair’s Page / Meeting Tools /  Note Well (PPT <https://www.ietf.org/wg/documents/note-well.ppt> )

I agree, copying regularly is easier than checking the content.

Cheers,

Mehmet

From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 5:36 PM
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Cc: IETF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: In Search of a Revised Notewell

Spencer,

Before each meeting I always recopy the Note Well text into my chairs slides, because there just might be a change in the wording, and it’s easier to copy than to check.

Cheers,

Andy

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote:

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Lee Howard <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote:

On 8/9/17, 4:33 AM, "ietf on behalf of tom p." <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  on

True confession - I did the slides for TSVAREA at IETF 99, and didn't think to change the RFC number on my Note Well slide. 

It's not like I didn't know about RFC 8179. According to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8179/ballot/, I BALLOTED YES WITH COMMENTS on it. But that didn't translate into me changing my Note Well slide ... making the change to my IETF 100 slide deck now.

Spencer, who apparently isn't getting enough caffeine in his diet Pepsi, in spite of many valiant efforts to do so ...

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:09:47 +1200

> WG Chair’s Page / Meeting Tools /  Note Well (PPT <https://www.ietf.org/wg/documents/note-well.ppt> )

But https://www.ietf.org/wg/documents/note-well.odp is 404.

If the Note Well referred to BCP78 and BCP79, we wouldn't have had this confusion.

    Brian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:13:25 -0500

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> > WG Chair’s Page / Meeting Tools /  Note Well (PPT <
> https://www.ietf.org/wg/documents/note-well.ppt> )
>

Harumph ...

> If the Note Well referred to BCP78 and BCP79, we wouldn't have had this

Not one second before Brian's e-mail appeared in my inbox, I sent a private
reply to someone else that said

"I GUESS I get that it's worth specifying exactly what people had available
to note well (so, specific RFCs), but the benefit of knowing what the Note
Well actually said in any meeting seems outweighed by the cost of someone
agreeing to an outdated version of the BCP, because that's what the chairs
put on the slides."

Harumph.

Spencer

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:29:15 -0400

Brian,

I don’t use the pre-prepared slide, I prefer to copy and paste the text
from the official online Note Well page. That way you don’t have to worry
about the pre-prepared slide accidentally being out of date, slide
formatting issues (font, background, etc.), and such.

I’m happy to leave it to the people who know much more about such issues
than I to decide whether the BCPs, RFCs, or both should be referenced.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: "tom p." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:24:15 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mehmet Ersue" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Andrew G. Malis'" <[email-masked]>; "'Spencer Dawkins at IETF'"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "'IETF'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 6:01 PM

Without knowing the URL one can always download the current version of
Note Well slide from:

WG Chair’s Page / Meeting Tools /  Note Well (PPT
<https://www.ietf.org/wg/documents/note-well.ppt> )

<tp>

Yes, if you are a WG Chair at an IETF Meeting:-)  The e-mail participant
would not know to do this AFAICT (and I am subscribed to the ipr mailing
list!); and even now, the e-mail participant who does not track the IETF
list would still probably not know of a revised Notewell..

Tom Petch

Cheers,

Mehmet

Spencer,

Cheers,

Andy

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
<[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >
wrote:

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Lee Howard <[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> > wrote:

On 8/9/17, 4:33 AM, "ietf on behalf of tom p." <[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>  on
behalf of [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >

>I started reading the minutes, since January 2016.

I recall seeing an announcement from Scott Bradner that certain IPR
rules
had been updated. I don’t remember seeing a broad community announcement
with the banner, “The Note Well advisory has changed.”

So, Tom, thanks for asking about this, and helping the rest of us catch
up.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:13:43 -0400

--On Thursday, August 10, 2017 08:09 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> WG Chair's Page / Meeting Tools /  Note Well (PPT

Maybe, and maybe our "stable" references are not stable enough.
I would certainly prefer to go in that direction.   However, my
guess is that it would need to not only refer to them but to say
explicitly that it is the reader's responsibility to find the
most recent version and then provide a reference for where to
look that up.  But that is, again, a guess -- IANAL, and the
Note Well is not a random piece of general advice.  It is an
attempt to bind people to particular legal restrictions by
virtue of seeing or hearing about it (maybe with a few
exceptions like the registration procedure in which people are
required to read and then sign off before moving further).    I
gather that how effective it might be if challenged is a matter
of disagreement among lawyers and perhaps jurisdictions and I
continue to hope that whatever is there, how we use it, and how
precise it needs to be are subjects on which the IESG and IETF
Trust are getting good enough advice to be willing to bet the
effectiveness of the policies to which it points, even in edge
cases, on that advice.

    john