Subject: Re: [Mip4] rfc3344bis.txt

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:18:28 +0100

Hi Charlie,

on 2004-07-13 00:14 Charles E.Perkins said the following:
> Hello folks,
> 
> I have submitted an Internet Draft containing a revised
> version of RFC 3344 to the Internet Drafts control subsystem.
> Whether it will succeed, still remains to be seen.  There
> are new requirements placed on Internet Drafts, and I didn't
> have a perfect template from which to steal text.

Many recent drafts are just fine.  Here's one example:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity-01

The appropriate boilerplate was published in RFC 3978, in March 2005;
it's hardly new any more: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3978

There will however be a small adjustment needed soon, based on
RFC 4748, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4748, which changes the
copyright notices to specify the IETF Trust.  You may want to make
that change at once.

Finally, there's a tool ('idnits') which you can use to get feedback
on things that might need fixing up before submitting a draft for
publication (and we're getting close to that now, I think ;) :

http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/

Looking at the output from idnits, there seems to be some stuff that
could need fixing.  The short form output is given below; if you
run the tool with the verbose option, you'll get the exact
boilerplate needed as part of the output, ready for cut and paste:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

idnits 1.118 

tmp/rfc3344bis.txt:

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  * The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section.
  * The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative
    References.
    
    Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...

  * Found RFC 3979 Section 5 paragraph 1 boilerplate (on line 4581), which is
    fine, but *also* found RFC 2026 Section 10.4A boilerplate on line 3822. It
    should be removed.
  * Found RFC 3979 Section 5 paragraph 3 boilerplate (on line 4594), which is
    fine, but *also* found RFC 2026 Section 10.4B boilerplate on line 3828. It
    should be removed.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  - Mismatching filename: the document gives the document name as
    'draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-03', but the file name used is 'rfc3344bis'

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  - * In addition to RFC 3979 Section 5 paragraph 1 boilerplate, a section
    with a similar start was also found:

    "The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
    intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
    pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
    this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
    might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
    has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
    IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
    standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
    claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
    licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
    obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
    proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
    be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.")

  - * In addition to RFC 3979 Section 5 paragraph 3 boilerplate, a section
    with a similar start was also found:

    "The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
    copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
    rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
    this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
    Director.")

  - The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not
    match the current year
  - Line 743 has weird spacing: '... Length   indi...'
  - Line 4372 has weird spacing: '...ensions  used ...'

  Experimental warnings:
  - Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'M' on line 3676 (?)
  - Unused Reference: '4' is defined on line 4390, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: '7' is defined on line 4403, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: '23' is defined on line 4468, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: '25' is defined on line 4476, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: '26' is defined on line 4480, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: '29' is defined on line 4492, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: '31' is defined on line 4502, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: '35' is defined on line 4520, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: '36' is defined on line 4525, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: '37' is defined on line 4530, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: '41' is defined on line 4546, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: '42' is defined on line 4550, but not referenced

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

	Henrik

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:28:34 +0100

Oh, dear, oh, dear.

My email client or server is playing tricks on me -- the mail that
I responded to (below) popped up, fresh, unread and unanswered
yesterday, and I didn't notice that it was severely outdated!!

I don't know how this has happened, but it occurs to me that it
has happened to me certainly once, and maybe twice before over the
last 2 years -- and maybe ??  even once with this precise same
message from Charlie ???

Anyway, my excuses for burdening you with outdated traffic!

Regards,

	Henrik