On 25/01/2017 23:07, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > On 25/01/2017 07:42, Jari Arkko wrote: >> Stewart, >> >> Thanks again for your comments. Inline: >> >>> In the body of this document you say: >>> >>> j. "Internet-Draft": a temporary document used in the IETF and RFC >>> Editor processes, as described in [RFC2026]. >>> >>> RFC2026 states that the drafts are removed from the directory, implying >>> that after that time they are not available. Whilst that never really >>> reflected reality, the IETF through its tools system actively makes these >>> documents available in perpetuity. Given the legal nature of this draft >>> we ought to properly note the permanent availability of these temporary >>> documents. >> OK. Do you have a text suggestion, or would dropping “temporary” in this >> context be sufficient? > > Well we could tell the whole story: they are a temporary document for > the purposes > of actively progressing our work, but are persistent and remain beyond > the publication of any > RFC for the purposes of traceability. I think just dropping "temporary" is sufficient. We know that I-Ds have been accepted as prior art in court cases, so it's really irrelevant for the purposes of the current draft. And I don't think we should do a backdoor update of RFC 2026 here. >> >>> Section 5.3.3 specifically calls out ADs but there are many others who >>> fall into the same category: the GEN_ART team, the directorates of >>> other areas such as SEC and OPS, and of course regular contributors that >>> only read an out of area RFC when they need to use its contents. >> Fair point. >> >>> If the text is specifically going to call out ADs it ought to also call >>> out those that help ADs as part of their review process. It's section 5.2.3 actually. But I agree, it could read By the nature of their office, IETF area directors or persons assisting them may become aware of Contributions late in the process ... Regards, Brian