Subject: NEW ITEM: "Normally placed at the end"

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 17:15:05 -0400

RFC 3978 says:

5.4.  Copyright Notice (required for all IETF Documents)

   (Normally placed at the end of the IETF Document.)

5.5.  Disclaimer (required in all IETF Documents)

   (Normally placed at the end of the IETF Document after the copyright
   notice.)

Are these location statements normative?  That is, is there a
requirement for these parts to be at the end of the document, or do
they have the same meaning in the middle of the document?

The question arises because "the end" is not particularly well
specified - can it be before appendices?  Can it be the last main
section of the document before Authors' Addresses?  Does it have to be
the last page?

Thanks,
  Bill

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:29:02 +0200

Personal opinion:

> section of the document before Authors' Addresses?  Does it have to be

Why leave it ambiguous? That only results in rather futile arguments
about when "normally" applies.

Why not just say:

Placed at the end of the document, after all other content except the
disclaimer mentioned below.

   and

Placed at the end of the document, after all other content.

     Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:57:54 +0300 (EEST)

> Placed at the end of the document, after all other content.

It isn't quite that simple -- xml2rfc generated docs have this as the 
last thing on the document:

Acknowledgment

    Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
    Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:17:56 +0200

>    Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Sure. Well we can either have words to allow that or move it...

The point is that any words like "normally" create a headache for
automated checking tools, and boilerplate is above all something
that we should be able to check for automatically.

    Brian

---

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:51:28 -0400

Let me try again, since I wasn't clear enough the first time.

Is there a legal reason that these statements must be the last things
in the document, or would they have the same force appearing elsewhere
in the document?  Please try to avoid expressing a cosmetic
preference, that's not the issue.

Thanks,
  Bill

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:14:29 +0200

> preference, that's not the issue.

IANAL, so I won't express an opinion on that.

My preference isn't cosmetic - it's to make this as simple as
possible for both authors and tools, and defining a fixed
position seems to do that.

    Brian

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:42:58 +0200

> Placed at the end of the document, after all other content.

I like this.

I would also suggest to move the text inside parenthesis in the
section title into the body of the section.  That is, make the text
read:

  5.4.  Copyright Notice

  A Copyright Notice is required for all IETF Documents.  It is placed
  at the end of the document, after all other content except the
  disclaimer mentioned below.

  5.5.  Disclaimer

  The disclaimer is required in all IETF Documents.  Placed at the end
  of the document, after all other content.

As for xml2rfc, well, it will simply have to change, if this proposal
goes through.  Given the number of policy changes in the IETF that has
implied code changes to xml2rfc, this isn't a new or serious problem.

/Simon

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 07:33:12 -0700

Where exactly does this Funding come from?

Todd Glassey

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 07:46:04 -0700

Bill - Depending on what they pertain to and whether the draft has other
copyright statements controlling it as well, then maybe where the release
statement goes modifies the IETF's default copyright - maybe it doesn't...

The issue is that after the update to the US Copyright Act, ***everything***
is automatically copyrighted by its owners whether they are the individual
doing the work or their sponsor's. And the basic copyright is "All rights
reserved" unless otherwise specifically enumerated - which is the exact
opposite of how it used to be...

So... "No" it shouldn't matter that the (c) appears somewhere else than in
the front of the document as it would have had to in the pre 1978 versions
of Copyright from what I understand...

Jorge can confirm this if anyone can get hum to say anything here...

Todd Glassey

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 05:37:35 -0700

Sure Brian - But parity with previous documents is critical. Also this would
make all new RFC's and ID's different looking than old ones. Is this the
intent?

BTW since the US Copyright Act used to require the notice in the front of
the document and this is the global standard then "Why move it to the
end?" - what is it that you accomplish?

Todd Glassey

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:18:04 -0700

Ticket opened.