Re: New ID-Checklist to replace ID-nits (fwd)

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

It would be *really* nice if RFC 2223bis explicitly said where to put
all these new incantations.  The ID-Checklist *should* just be summary
of the items from RFC 223bis that are legally motivated or frequently
gotten wrong.

Randy

> From: "Scott Bradner" <sob at harvard.edu>
> To: <henrik at levkowetz.com>; <magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com>
> Cc: <bwijnen at lucent.com>; <harald at alvestrand.no>; <sob at harvard.edu>; <wgchairs at ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 6:26 AM
> Subject: Re: New ID-Checklist to replace ID-nits (fwd)
>

> > On Monday, 24 May 2004, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> > > One question concerning your boilerplate. Shouldn't your status of this
> > > memo section include the following paragraph?
> > >
> > > "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I (we) accept the provisions of
> > > Section 3 of RFC 3667 (BCP 78)."
> >
> > As 3667 is written, you are deemed to agree to section 3.3 just by
> > submitting a draft - 3667 doesn't require you to acknowledge this.
>
> that is correct, RFC 3667 does not require you to acknowledge agreement
> with RFC 3667 sec 3.3 -
>
> I do not think that there needs to be such an acknowledgement (legally)
> but it would not hurt to do so - if someone wants to include such an
> acknowledgement I'd suggest
>
>   "This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
>   of section 3 of RFC 3667."
>
> (use of "accept" can be a problem in some cases where the document
> has been placed in the public domain)
>
> Scott
>