Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] bug: RFC output when ipr="noModificationTrust200902"

From: Alice Hagens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:57:57 -0400

Greetings,

This is not urgent, as we rarely receive documents that must be published with this notice; but I'm sending along the bug report while we're looking at it.

When ipr="noModificationTrust200902"  (and number="XXXX" so xml2rfc is producing an RFC rather than an I-D), the current output for "Copyright Notice" is:

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

We believe it should be:

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Simplified BSD License.
   
   This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
   be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

Sample files attached.

Thanks,
Alice
for the RFC Production Center

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:11:18 +0200

On 13.04.2011 21:57, Alice Hagens wrote:
> ...

The difference being that

is missing.

My understanding was that @ipr only affects Internet-Drafts, except for 
the pre5378-escape-clause, but a reading of the TLP confirms that this 
clause indeed could occur in a non-standards-track RFC.

Is this the case here?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:35:55 +0200

On 13.04.2011 23:11, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> This is not urgent, as we rarely receive documents that must be
>> published with this notice; but I'm sending along the bug report while
>> we're looking at it.
>>
>> When ipr="noModificationTrust200902" (and number="XXXX" so xml2rfc is
>> producing an RFC rather than an I-D), the current output for
>> "Copyright Notice" is:
>> ...
>

Furthermore, could you please have a look at 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5728>?

This seems to use two different clauses, which, in xml2rfc, would be 
mutually exclusive. Can you confirm that this is a mistake in the 
published document?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Alice Hagens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:45:35 -0400

Julian wrote:
> Furthermore, could you please have a look at <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5728>?
> 
> This seems to use two different clauses, which, in xml2rfc, would be mutually exclusive. Can you confirm that this is a mistake in the published document?
> 

You are correct. That is a mistake in RFC 5728.

The following interpretation of the TLP has been confirmed with the Trust:

- 6.c.i is a stronger limitation that 6.c.iii, so if 6.c.i is included 6.c.iii is not needed any longer.

(where 6.c.i is the text created by ipr='noModificationTrust200902' and 6.c.iii is the text created by ipr='pre5378Trust200902')

Thanks,
Alice

---

From: Alice Hagens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:46:00 -0400

On Apr 13, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> My understanding was that @ipr only affects Internet-Drafts, except for the pre5378-escape-clause, but a reading of the TLP confirms that this clause indeed could occur in a non-standards-track RFC.
> 
> Is this the case here?
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

Yes. It was my mistake to have category="std" in the sample file that I sent. I agree with you that the TLP states that 6.c.i's use is limited to non-Standards-Track RFCs. (where 6.c.i is the text created by ipr='noModificationTrust200902' in xml2rfc)

The request still stands regarding the ability to generate 6.c.i in an RFC.  Attached is an updated sample file using category="info", whose output also lacks the text.

Thanks,
Alice