Document: draft-ietf-ipr-template-09 Reviewer: Michael Patton Date: May 8, 2004 This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC I would suggest one change, although I don't consider it critical. See the second paragraph below. In my first read-through, I did have a few questions, but decided to reread RFC3668 before beginning detailed analysis, since this draft is so intimately tied to 3668. I discovered that all the questions were, in fact, latent in 3668. So, ultimately, this document is as good as it can get without updating 3668. However, if 3668 ever comes up for an update, I now have a few comments on improvements that could be made. Another thing that surprised me as I was researching was to discover that there is, in fact, already a web based form of essentially the same content referenced off the IETF IPR procedures page, except that the web form has a critical bug... In section VI of the draft, there is a list of "pick one" items, but three have a subsidiary question (essentially a Yes/No question, but not phrased that way). In the web form these questions are changed to a statement giving the more restrictive (and thus less useful) form of this. I would suggest that, in the draft, a slight rewording so that the Yes/No nature is clear and a selection needs to be made; and on the web form a Yes/No check box should be added. Specifically in the draft, take out the "Check here if" and change the single "___" to "Yes __ / No __" A third thing that bothered me a little was the fact of all the required IPR boilerplate in a document which was, in itself, giving IPR boilerplate. This seems like it might offer possible confusion as to which boilerplate is meta-data and what's part of the template. It is, actually, separated properly and I don't see anything that can be effectively done. However I was a bit concerned over the possibility of this confusion and thought I'd mention it. And, finally, something that's mostly just silly... The effect of the editor's name and the way it's notated on each page caught my eye and for a second I thought the "See (editor)" notation was part of the doc telling me to look elsewhere, until I realized it was the page footer. I suppose that changing it to "V. See (ed.)" might be an improvement, but it's probably just a burst of dyslexia on my part and not really relevant.