Subject: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 08:04:39 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-shutdown/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I wondering why there is this addition cited below to the copyright
notice needed given there is no IPR declared. Can you please explain?!
„This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.“

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 17:11:24 +0200

> draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-08: No Objection

The document updates the technology defined in rfc4486, and the
idnits thingy gave this feedback:

Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Using the creation date from RFC4486, updated by this document, for
     RFC5378 checks: 2006-01-25)

  -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may
     have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  The
     disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have
     been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights
     to the IETF Trust.  If you are able to get all authors (current and
     original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the
     disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this
     comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

	source: https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-08.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Without the disclaimer for pre-5378 the idnits tool gives this feedback:
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-01.txt

I am open to any suggestions if change is needed, I do not consider
myself a copyright expert.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 17:15:53 +0200

Ah, thanks. Wasn’t aware of this. I’m neither a copyright expert. Did you try to contact the authors of RFC4486 rather than adding this note?

Mirja

> Am 22.05.2017 um 17:11 schrieb Job Snijders <[email-masked]>:
>

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 17:49:40 +0200

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 05:15:53PM +0200, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> Ah, thanks. Wasn’t aware of this. I’m neither a copyright expert.

> Did you try to contact the authors of RFC4486 rather than adding this
> note?

No. Copy+pasting the note as suggested by the idnits tool seemed less
work :-)

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 17:49:23 -0400

Hi, Job,

> No. Copy+pasting the note as suggested by the idnits tool seemed less

Having done the same thing, it's less work, THIS time.

The problem is that authors of older RFCs get closer to not being able to
respond to questions every year (many changed e-mail addresses, some
retired, and some, sadly, died), and if you don't check this now, every
time this draft gets a bis, you'll have to decide whether to go chase the
authors or keep cutting and pasting boilerplate that says, essentially,
"we're not actually sure we're allowed to use this text, because the
original authors were never asked the question".

As I understand things, of course.

Spencer, who has a draft in AD Evaluation with an author who has passed on
- his e-mail address still works, but that only irritates his family when
we ask questions like this one ...