Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: idnits v1.63

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:14:56 +0200

Nelson, David wrote:
> Bill Fenner writes...
> 
> 
>>  The simplification that Henrik mentions is that the boilerplate must
>>now exactly match that in RFC 3978 / 1id-guidelines, since that's what
>>the lawyers and the IPR WG OK'd; previously it was considered OK for
> 
> an
> 
>>author to change, e.g., the "he or she" in the template to "he" on a
>>document with only male authors, or the "each author" to "the author"
>>on a document with only one author.
> 
> 
> I can't imagine that an attorney who was asked to review the IPR
> boilerplate would not approve each of the versions to accommodate the
> gender and number of authors, assuming that someone were to ask the
> question in that fashion.  In my experience, "flexibility" problems laid
> at the feet of legal counsel are often, in fact, a failure to ask the
> right questions of counsel in the first instance.  :-)

Possibly, but the approved BCP is the approved BCP, and its language
was carefully written to cover all cases.

     Brian

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:19 -0400

Bill Fenner writes...

an

-- Dave

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:43:56 -0600

Hi,

The BCP language is the most broad.  It covers all possible 
combinations of authors and prevents potential problems if a single 
author then adds an additional author and forgets to update the 
(modified) boilerplate.

Remember that we are not creating one document that legal needs to 
review, we are creating a ONE boilerplate to put in EVERY document, and 
to prevent screw ups, it needs to be used consistently everywhere.  
Multiple choices where you don't need them is just asking for trouble.

thanks,
-rohan