6 May 09:54
6 May 23:16
Re: PRE8PROB BOF Minutes
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com>
2009-05-06 21:16:26 GMT
2009-05-06 21:16:26 GMT
On 2009-05-06 19:54, Russ Housley wrote:
> The Pre8Prob minutes are now posted on the IETF 74 Proceedings page.
> Please review them.
Only one comment. In the initial summary it says
"- Authors of new contributions SHOULD raise a flag when all of the text in their
contribution did not come from them "
Actually, there is a very old requirement which 5378 continues
that contributions not from the named authors must (not should)
be acknowledged. I didn't hear a consensus in the BOF to change
that. Also, IMHO it's ethically the right thing to do.
The citations for this are section 5.6 (a) of RFC5378,
section 3.4 (a) of RFC3978 and RFC3667, and section 10.3.1 (4)
of RFC2026.
Brian
11 May 23:29
[Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-5378-old-text-02.txt]
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com>
2009-05-11 21:29:53 GMT
2009-05-11 21:29:53 GMT
This version of the draft describes a completely modified procedure
compared to the one presented at IETF74, which did not obtain consensus.
It contains small and large changes throughout.
Discussion is invited on the ipr-wg <at> ietf.org list.
Brian
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-5378-old-text-02.txt
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
Reply-To: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org
To: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : Including text under former copyright conditions
Author(s) : B. Carpenter, H. Alvestrand
Filename : draft-carpenter-5378-old-text-02.txt
Pages : 10
Date : 2009-05-11
This document specifies a procedure for including text in an IETF
document for which the current copyright conditions defined in RFC
5378 cannot readily be met.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-5378-old-text-02.txt
(Continue reading)
12 May 05:22
Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-5378-old-text-02.txt]
John C Klensin <john-ietf <at> jck.com>
2009-05-12 03:22:34 GMT
2009-05-12 03:22:34 GMT
--On Tuesday, May 12, 2009 09:29 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com> wrote: > This version of the draft describes a completely modified > procedure compared to the one presented at IETF74, which did > not obtain consensus. It contains small and large changes > throughout. > > Discussion is invited on the ipr-wg <at> ietf.org list. Brian, My reading of the rough consensus during and after IETF 74 was not "no consensus for draft-carpenter-5378-old-text-01.txt, please try again". It was "accept the 'interim' Trust disclaimer as permanent, without further attempting to tune details, and stop" -- with the "decide we are done and stop" part being important. In addition, if Larry Rosen's theory is correct, this entire discussion is immaterial. To the best of my knowledge, we have received no advice or instructions from the Trust or its Counsel on that subject. But, were advice to appear that we can call rely on Larry's theory, we would also be finished and your draft would be irrelevant at best and a serious distraction at worst. It is possible that, despite that impression from IETF 74, there are a significant number of active IETF participants who want to pursue this. If there are, I hope they will identify(Continue reading)
12 May 06:27
Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-5378-old-text-02.txt]
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com>
2009-05-12 04:27:00 GMT
2009-05-12 04:27:00 GMT
John, On 2009-05-12 15:22, John C Klensin wrote: > > --On Tuesday, May 12, 2009 09:29 +1200 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com> wrote: > >> This version of the draft describes a completely modified >> procedure compared to the one presented at IETF74, which did >> not obtain consensus. It contains small and large changes >> throughout. >> >> Discussion is invited on the ipr-wg <at> ietf.org list. > > Brian, > > My reading of the rough consensus during and after IETF 74 was > not "no consensus for draft-carpenter-5378-old-text-01.txt, > please try again". It was "accept the 'interim' Trust > disclaimer as permanent, without further attempting to tune > details, and stop" -- with the "decide we are done and stop" > part being important. Well, the intention of this draft, I think, is to say exactly that, and to leave the rest to the Trust. I don't see how, when there's a known gap in the BCP, we can fail to amend the BCP; a feeling in a room in the SF Hilton doesn't do that. But basically, the intention is to achieve exactly what you say. Of course, there would be another form of amendment which simply says(Continue reading)
RSS Feed