I am fine with this too. (the new boilerplate that incorporates rfc3578 verbiage.)
Thanks Mitesh -----Original Message----- From: Randall Stewart [mailto:r...@lakerest.net] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:02 AM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth); draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsec...@tools.ietf.org; General Area Review Team; tcpm-cha...@tools.ietf.org; Lars Eggert Subject: Re: Retry: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-11.txt I am cool with that... Anantha can you get Mitesh to respond to this too? R On Apr 10, 2009, at 11:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2009-04-11 12:57, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote: > > Thanks for the responses. > > ... > >> - when you mention disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 I am assuming this >> comes with the new boiler plate change. If yes, the new boiler plate >> changes would also be addressed. >> FWIW, this document has been circulating in the TCPM for the past 5 >> years! So not sure about pre-RFC 5378 etc., > > The question is, do all contributors to the draft agree to it being > re-submitted under RFC5378 rules? If so, you just use the normal > version of the new boilerplate (<rfc ipr="trust200902"> in xml2rfc). > > If you can't be sure that all contributors agree, you have to add the > extra disclaimer (<rfc ipr="pre5378Trust200902"> in xml2rfc). > > At least, that's my non-lawyer understanding. > > Brian > ------------------------------ Randall Stewart 803-317-4952 (cell) 803-345-0391(direct) _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
