Re: Abstract on Page 1?
On an allied topic, I notice that a recent I-D - draft-ietf-sidr-arch-06.txt - published March 9, 2009, had a running heading which included 'November 2008'. Paranoid as I am, I immediately link this date to RFC5378 and the time when the IETF Trust introduced the new rules for IPR. Is there a connection orr is there some more innocent explanation as to why the running heading is not March 2009? Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de To: Scott Lawrence scott.lawre...@nortel.com Cc: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Abstract on Page 1? Scott Lawrence wrote: ... This is a trivial change for the generation tools to make - at worst it will make one generation of diffs slightly more difficult (and I'd be happy to trade one generation of poor diffs for this, so for me just don't worry about fixing the diff tools). ... At this point, no change to the boilerplate is trivial anymore. For xml2rfc, we need to - define how to select the new behavior (date? ipr value? rfc number?); if the behavior is not explicitly selected in the source, we need heuristics when to use the old one and when to use the new one (keep in mind that the tools need to be able to generate historic documents as well) - add new test cases - add documentation So, I'm not against another re-organization, but, in this time, PLEASE: - plan it well (think of all consequences for both I-Ds and RFCs) - make the requirements precise and actually implementable (remember: must be on page 1 :-) - give the tool developers sufficient time; optimally let *then* decide when the cutover date should be BR, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
At 08:23 17-03-2009, Tom.Petch wrote: On an allied topic, I notice that a recent I-D - draft-ietf-sidr-arch-06.txt - published March 9, 2009, had a running heading which included 'November 2008'. Paranoid as I am, I immediately link this date to RFC5378 and the time when the IETF Trust introduced the new rules for IPR. Is there a connection orr is there some more innocent explanation as to why the running heading is not March 2009? Cc to the authors of draft-ietf-sidr-arch-06.txt for the more innocent explanation. The date for the Expires footer is May 2009 whereas the I-D expires on September 9, 2009. There is a Pre-5378 Material Disclaimer section at the end of the I-D. Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Abstract on Page 1?
+1. I agree. Regards, Ed Juskevicius -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke Sent: March 7, 2009 3:46 AM To: Scott Lawrence Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Abstract on Page 1? Scott Lawrence wrote: ... This is a trivial change for the generation tools to make - at worst it will make one generation of diffs slightly more difficult (and I'd be happy to trade one generation of poor diffs for this, so for me just don't worry about fixing the diff tools). ... At this point, no change to the boilerplate is trivial anymore. For xml2rfc, we need to - define how to select the new behavior (date? ipr value? rfc number?); if the behavior is not explicitly selected in the source, we need heuristics when to use the old one and when to use the new one (keep in mind that the tools need to be able to generate historic documents as well) - add new test cases - add documentation So, I'm not against another re-organization, but, in this time, PLEASE: - plan it well (think of all consequences for both I-Ds and RFCs) - make the requirements precise and actually implementable (remember: must be on page 1 :-) - give the tool developers sufficient time; optimally let *then* decide when the cutover date should be BR, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
Scott Lawrence wrote: ... This is a trivial change for the generation tools to make - at worst it will make one generation of diffs slightly more difficult (and I'd be happy to trade one generation of poor diffs for this, so for me just don't worry about fixing the diff tools). ... At this point, no change to the boilerplate is trivial anymore. For xml2rfc, we need to - define how to select the new behavior (date? ipr value? rfc number?); if the behavior is not explicitly selected in the source, we need heuristics when to use the old one and when to use the new one (keep in mind that the tools need to be able to generate historic documents as well) - add new test cases - add documentation So, I'm not against another re-organization, but, in this time, PLEASE: - plan it well (think of all consequences for both I-Ds and RFCs) - make the requirements precise and actually implementable (remember: must be on page 1 :-) - give the tool developers sufficient time; optimally let *then* decide when the cutover date should be BR, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
On 2009-03-04 16:33 Margaret Wasserman said the following: I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. I don't believe that there are any legal implications to moving our IPR information to the back of the document, and it would be great not to have to page down at the beginning of every I-D to skip over it. If someone wants to check the licensing details, they could look at the end of the document. +1 Whether or not this is an easy fix for the tools, I think it's the right thing to do, not only for drafts but also for RFCs, as it lets us focus on the technical matter of a document, rather than copyright, other IPR details, and administrivia. Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
This seems like a really good idea from a usability perspective, but I've not noticed any feed back from our official or unofficial legal community. My concern would be whether there is a legal requirement that the copyright and other similar declarations be in the front of a document. I'd certainly like to move the copyright and such from the front of every source file I've had to look at. In particular, the book sized declarations often used in the open source community or to conform to various UNIX licenses. I can't recall any examples of any document or source file where the copyright was at the end. It certainly isn't common. David Morris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
On Mar 7, 2009, at 1:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: So, I'm not against another re-organization, but, in this time, PLEASE: - plan it well (think of all consequences for both I-Ds and RFCs) - make the requirements precise and actually implementable (remember: must be on page 1 :-) - give the tool developers sufficient time; optimally let *then* decide when the cutover date should be BR, Julian +1 Also, There are some changes the IESG needs to deal with, some the IAB, some the Trustees. We should incorporate all of this into one single document that shows clear examples of what things will look like so there is no confusion, then get all required approval bodies to approve it. Having half the changes in one doc, half in another doc results in unintended nightmares when we go to merge. I also propose we do our best to get it right once instead of a steady stream of changing requirements on document authors. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
On Mar 7, 2009, at 12:21 PM, David Morris wrote: I can't recall any examples of any document or source file where the copyright was at the end. It certainly isn't common. agree it is unusual and weird but much of resiprocate has them at the end because some people had a hard time with the page down key on the first page https://svn.resiprocate.org/viewsvn/resiprocate/main/p2p/ChordTopology.cxx?view=markup ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
At 14:02 07/03/2009, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: On 2009-03-04 16:33 Margaret Wasserman said the following: I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. I don't believe that there are any legal implications to moving our IPR information to the back of the document, and it would be great not to have to page down at the beginning of every I-D to skip over it. If someone wants to check the licensing details, they could look at the end of the document. +1 Whether or not this is an easy fix for the tools, I think it's the right thing to do, not only for drafts but also for RFCs, as it lets us focus on the technical matter of a document, rather than copyright, other IPR details, and administrivia. Hear hear, IFF we need copyright on page 1 something like this should be sufficient: This document is covered by IETF Copyright policy ID, copy of this policy can be found at the end of the document Or: s/at the end of the document/at http://www.ietf.org/copyright_ID/ I have no comment on what form the ID part should take other than it MUST be shorter than 30 characters. Olafur ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
TSG tglassey at earthlink dot net wrote: Then the template has to be changed. Will the IETF still continue to accept documents formatted the old way or will it mandate this change everywhere - and gee - that could be our own little stimulus package - we may have to hire someone to move the (c) in all of the existing documents to the end pages with the licensing info. It would surprise me if changing all of the existing documents was considered part of the scope of this suggestion. -- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Abstract on Page 1?
I doubt that this is a huge tool-builder issue. Lets not go looking for problems. I think moving the boilerplate is a good idea, particularly for people who are still reading the TXT versions of the docs. The only piece I would keep on the front page is the bit that says where comments should go. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Wed 3/4/2009 10:55 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Abstract on Page 1? On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:50:19PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: The following text must be included on the first page of each IETF Document as specified below: Some of us may regard the requirement of standard legal boilerplate taking precedence over technical content to be a symptom of a problem, rather than something to be accepted quietly. (But I have a great deal of sympathy for the toolbuilders, and think that maybe just now is not a good time to be making more changes. Perhaps the next time one is required anyway, though?) A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Abstract on Page 1?
--On Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:37 -0800 Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: At 1:14 PM -0500 3/5/09, John C Klensin wrote: I'd like to be sure that the people proposing this are all actually proposing the same thing... versus the possibility that they have different things in mind. Fully agree. The proposed IAB document, draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates, This thread, until your message, was about Internet Drafts; yours is about RFCs. The issues are quite different. As you might remember if you followed my many comments on this list about the IAB document, I think that separating the two --creating formats that are significantly different-- is looking for all sorts of trouble. IMO, one of our big breakthroughs of the last few years has been the ability of authors and the RFC Editor to work in xml2rfc format, doing clean diffs on the relationship between an I-D and the final working (AUTH48) drafts of RFCs. I'm also concerned about the burdens on tool-builders and tools, especially those less sophisticated than xml2rfc, if we end up needing references from boilerplate in the front of documents to sections or pages near the end (or buried in the middle). So, to me at least, move status and copyright to the end gets a lot less attractive if that is ...end of I-D but not RFCs rather than both. It also leads me to wonder about alternate solutions if the problem to be solved is really abstract on page 1. For example, if we are talking about I-Ds, maybe the length of the Status section needs serious review. In particular, I would guess that -- The second paragraph could be shortened significantly or dropped; I don't know what it accomplishes. -- While I'm one of the few remaining fans of the valid for only six months rule, it has been diluted sufficiently that perhaps we should be having a discussion about whether that paragraph, or at least the first half of the first sentence, is useful enough to justify the space any more, especially with the requirement for an expiration date on the document. -- The two The list of... paragraphs have almost certainly become noise. The shadow list is not complete and still refers to FTP archives and 1id-abstracts.txt no longer contains the information that the sentence suggests it does. Apparently no one has complained to the Secretariat or Tools Team about either, which is probably a hint about how useful they are. By my count, that would get rid of at least nine lines, or at least eleven if we concluded that we don't need a This Internet-Draft will expire statement in the Status if it appears in page footers. In addition, no matter what requirements exist about placement of copyright notices, I can imagine no possible reason why the order of Status and Abstract cannot simply be switched (in both RFCs and I-Ds) other than whatever energy it takes to make the decision. Since the Status section is 22 lines long in its most common current form (and without the workaround text) and the RFC Editor strongly discourages abstracts longer than about a dozen lines, just making that switch (even without the Status trimming I suggest above) would get the Abstracts onto the first page, always. So, just as I'd like to understand what people are advocating moving, I'd like to see if we can separate an objective (e.g., get the Abstract onto Page 1) from a mechanism (e.g., move the boilerplate to the end). john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
Margaret Wasserman wrote: I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. I don't believe that there are any legal implications to moving our IPR information to the back of the document, and it would be great not to have to page down at the beginning of every I-D to skip over it. If someone wants to check the licensing details, they could look at the end of the document. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Margaret Will this break any official or unofficial ID processing tools? Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org wrote: I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. Oh, yes please. That would immensely increase the usability of RFCs. -Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
On 3/4/09 10:33 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org wrote: I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. I like this suggestion a lot. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
On Mar 4, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: Margaret Wasserman wrote: I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. I don't believe that there are any legal implications to moving our IPR information to the back of the document, and it would be great not to have to page down at the beginning of every I-D to skip over it. If someone wants to check the licensing details, they could look at the end of the document. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Margaret Will this break any official or unofficial ID processing tools? They would have to be modified. Hopefully, not just before the I-D deadline. I like this idea a lot. +1 from me. The question I have is, would this require a change to RFC 5378 ? Or could it just be done ? Regards Marshall Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
Margaret Wasserman wrote: I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. I don't believe that there are any legal implications to moving our IPR information to the back of the document, and it would be great not to have to page down at the beginning of every I-D to skip over it. If someone wants to check the licensing details, they could look at the end of the document. Margaret After having suffered from the latest boilerplate change turmoil (which is not yet finished), and the next one already announced (RFC boilerplate), I really have to ask: you are joking, right? Note: Section 6 of http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-Legal-Provisions-Clean-2-12-09.pdf says: The following text must be included on the first page of each IETF Document as specified below: BR, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:50:19PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: The following text must be included on the first page of each IETF Document as specified below: Some of us may regard the requirement of standard legal boilerplate taking precedence over technical content to be a symptom of a problem, rather than something to be accepted quietly. (But I have a great deal of sympathy for the toolbuilders, and think that maybe just now is not a good time to be making more changes. Perhaps the next time one is required anyway, though?) A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org wrote: I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. Oh, yes please. That would immensely increase the usability of RFCs. -Tim +1 Ned ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
+1, after San Francisco. Let's give the volunteer tool authors some breathing space. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Abstract on Page 1?
On 4 mrt 2009, at 16:33, Margaret Wasserman wrote: I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1. I don't believe that there are any legal implications to moving our IPR information to the back of the document, and it would be great not to have to page down at the beginning of every I-D to skip over it. If someone wants to check the licensing details, they could look at the end of the document. FWIW: On my todo list is coordination of the implementation of draft-iab- streams-headers-boilerplates and in addition the consolidation of boilerplate material in RFCs and I-Ds. Part of the equation is figuring out if and where copyright and license boilerplate material can be moved. The plan is under construction. --Olaf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
