Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-03.txt> (The 'leaptofrogans' URI Scheme) to Informational RFC

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:53:47 +0000

Is an RFC really warranted?  RFC 7595 says that a registration request can be an I-D, stand-alone, or "part of some other permanently available, stable, protocol specification."  From reading the document, it appears that the authors' employer has an existing collection of stable documentation for this alternative presentation media -- defining a URI Scheme for it as part of that documentation feels more appropriate.

Why isn't this just an e-mail to IANA with a pointer to that documentation?

-----Original Message-----
From: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:44 AM
To: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Last Call: <draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-03.txt> (The 'leaptofrogans' URI Scheme) to Informational RFC

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'The 'leaptofrogans' URI Scheme'
  <draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-03.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the [email-masked] mailing lists by 2018-11-13. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document describes the 'leaptofrogans' Uniform Resource
   Identifier (URI) scheme, which enables applications to launch Frogans
   Player on a given Frogans site.  Frogans is a medium for publishing
   content and services on the Internet, defined as a generic software
   layer on the Internet.  Frogans Player is software enabling end users
   to browse Frogans sites.

The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:42:18 +0000

This I-D has two quirks that catch my eye, one IPR-related, the other
process-related.

The URI relates to a medium for publishing content and services on the
Internet, which has been given a name, by OP3FT which, the I-D informs
us, is a registered trademark which the IETF has a perpetual license to
use as part of the scheme name.

Given the lack of integrity and source authentication in I-Ds, and
indeed in RFC, is this statement in the I-D enough to convey legal
rights, or should there be a more secure mode of transmission of this
grant to the IETF, which the I-D could then reference?

Related to this, the I-D has the usual BCP 78 and BCP 79 boiler plate so
I can take text from this I-D, including the trademarked name, and
incorporate it in an I-D of my own, e.g. comparing and contrasting the
different URI schemes.  Do I need to acknowledge this name in such an
I-D as a trademark since this grant to the IETF seems very limited in
scope, not encompassing such use?  Indeed, I have avoided using the name
in this e-mail lest I fall foul of such an issue.

The process issue is that the I-D contains instructions to the RFC
Editor to excise Section 3; I consider this wrong, verging on an abuse
of process.  If this section is needed to be part of IETF Last Call then
it should be in the RFC.  The information in it, about the reasons for
the choice of name and its relationship to the trademarked name, I
consider a useful, if not quite essential, part of the process.  It
may - SHOULD - belong in an Informative Appendix, but telling the RFC
Editor to remove content post-Last Call is, to me, wrong.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF-Announce" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:43 PM

> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider the
> following document: - 'The 'leaptofrogans' URI Scheme'
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2018-11-13. Exceptionally, comments may
be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of
> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme/ba
llot/