Hi, Please see inline (I deleted parts that don't appear to need further comment) On Jul 4, 2014, at 8:44 AM, mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: [...] >> >>>> -- idNits complains about the lack of a pre-5378 disclaimer boilerplate. >> I >>>> found a discussion in the 6man archives ( http://www.ietf.org/mail- >>>> archive/web/ipv6/current/msg20838.html ) indicating the authors >> preferred >>>> not to contact all possible authors of pre-5378 text. Doesn't that mean >> the >>>> draft should carry the boilerplate? >>> >>> [Med] We prefer to leave this point for the RFC Editor. >>> >> >> Do you mean that you prefer to leave the _decision_ to the RFC Editor, or >> that you recognize the pre-5378 boilerplate is needed, but would like the >> RFC editor to insert it? > > [Med] We don't think a disclaimer is needed because we quote old text + the new one is largely the same. If the RFC editor re-raises the point, we will clarify our position and then discuss. This is what I meant by " leave this point for the RFC Editor." I think I'm with you for the "old" text, since that is made up of quoted text and attributed to the RFCs. But I'm a bit confused by the argument that the "new" text is largely the same as the old. That seems to support the idea that this draft derives text from those RFCs, which is exactly the situation the pre-5378 boilerplate is intended to address. In any case, I don't think the RFC editor can be expected to resolve the question, and the fact that the RFC editor might not bring up the issue doesn't mean there is no issue. At this point that responsibility seems to lie with the authors and the ADs. > >> >> If the former, The RFC editor will not have the background about the pre- >> 5378 text needed to make that call. That's the responsibility of the >> authors. If there's text from pre-5378 IETF documents included, and the >> current authors have not verified that all authors of the original text >> agree to the BCP 78 and 79 terms, then the pre-5378 boilerplate needs to go >> in. This is important; getting it wrong involves misrepresentation of the >> license terms. >> >> If the latter, then the draft needs some directive to the RFC editor to add >> the boilerplate. (But keep in mind that the pre-5378 boilerplate >> requirement applies to all contributions. That is, I-Ds as well as RFCs -- >> so it's important to get this right in the _draft_, not just the final >> RFC.) >> >> [...] >