In thinking about this some more if we end up with a TCPMUX like
approach for TCP, how shall UDP, SCTP, et al be handled? Is it okay to
handle them differently?
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
John,
At the moment there has been no transfer of rights in the early
RFCs to the IETF Trust, so I think you need to ask the
RFC Editor, or simply look at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.23Jan01.html
IANAL, but I have been told that in any case it is necessary
to check with the original
Dave Crocker wrote:
Also note that local holidays may be city specific not country specific.
It's quite impractical to consider city holidays three years out.
Not if the city is chosen 2-3 years out.
That really isn't likely for a meeting of our size; you need to be
in the 5000+ range for
not being the RFC editor, the IAB (or member thereof), or even the
(as yet undefinable) IETF, I am not sure I am qualified to render
a value judgement here. That said, I am in posession of two bound
volumes of the collected RFC series as of the date of publication of
said volumes (modulo
Total of 65 messages in the last 7 days through midnight,
Thursday, April 6, 2006 EST.
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
10.77% |7 | 9.17% |40843 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9.23% |6 | 10.16% |45261 | [EMAIL
Carl Malamud [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought that wide replication of the series was the whole
point. If there are issues, I thought they had to do with derivative
works. For example, a particularly risk-averse author of a new
book might query whether publication of 3 random pages from
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
ATT used to charge for any telephone color other than black, even though the cost of producing a telephone was the same no matter what color it was.
ATT also used to charge for additional private IP addresses. I remember one company had a bussiness package with
What is much less clear is the issues surrounding excerpts, or
derivative works. The original query pretty clearly asked/asserted
whether older RFCs were in the public domain. That's pretty far
removed from republication in their entirety.
Actually, what he has in mind is indeed republication in
Take a look at Section 5.4 of RFC 1602, which redefined
the IETF's IP process originally set forth in RFC 1310:
5.4. Rights and Permissions
In the course of standards work, ISOC receives contributions in
various forms and from many persons. To facilitate the wide
FWIW-(which isn't much), IMO people like NAT because
it lets them do what they want without paying more
or getting permission. Cause I think thats really
all they want from any solution.
ISP fees for additional addresses just leveraging an
opportunity to extract a few more dollars. The
Hmm... judging from some of the responses we've had, there's
an important clarification to make here:
[I wrote:]
- Enough time available. For example, it is preferable that the
candidate not be chair of more than one IETF WG, or a member
of the IESG or IAB.
Every IAB member (ex
John Levine wrote:
IANAL, but if you've followed discussions in places like the IPR WG,
it doesn't take much to conclude that this is a complicated space in
which rules interpreted by real lawyers play a big role.
The conclusion is not surprising given the knowledge level of IETF
on IPR issues
Hi Jorge -
Take a look at Section 5.4 of RFC 1602, which redefined
the IETF's IP process originally set forth in RFC 1310:
5.4. Rights and Permissions
In the course of standards work, ISOC receives contributions in
various forms and from many persons. To facilitate the
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4459
Title: MTU and Fragmentation Issues with
In-the-Network Tunneling
Author: P. Savola
Status: Informational
Date: April 2006
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4452
Title: The info URI Scheme for
Information Assets with Identifiers in Public
Namespaces
Author: H. Van de Sompel, T. Hammond,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4453
Title: Requirements for Consent-Based Communications in
the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Author: J. Rosenberg, G. Camarillo,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4458
Title: Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) URIs
for Applications such as Voicemail and
Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
Author: C.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4390
Title: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
over InfiniBand
Author: V. Kashyap
Status: Standards Track
Date: April 2006
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4438
Title: Fibre-Channel Name Server MIB
Author: C. DeSanti, V. Gaonkar,
H.K. Vivek, K. McCloghrie,
S. Gai
Status: Standards
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4391
Title: Transmission of IP over InfiniBand
(IPoIB)
Author: J. Chu, V. Kashyap
Status: Standards Track
Date: April 2006
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4452
Title: The info URI Scheme for
Information Assets with Identifiers in Public
Namespaces
Author: H. Van de Sompel, T. Hammond,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4392
Title: IP over InfiniBand (IPoIB) Architecture
Author: V. Kashyap
Status: Informational
Date: April 2006
Mailbox:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
22 matches
Mail list logo
