Russ,
I don't think this is good use of informative text. Other
standards bodies often mark some sections of a specification
as informative, but those sections are text that is helpful
for understanding the specification, but is not required to
implement it.
The KeyNote section is clearly
From: Bill Strahm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You think that is bad - try going by your legal Middle Name.
Do you know how many systems require a first name and a middle
initial...
I once gave very serious consideration to legally changing my first name to
J (just the one letter) so
Noel Chiappa wrote:
I once gave very serious consideration to legally changing my first
name to J (just the one letter) so that I could mess with such
systems, and the bureacrats who use them. It would have been such a
delight... (Boy, it would have sent the INS people ballistic! :-)
Cue the
Hi. Speaking as an individual, I'd like to make an explicit call for
members of the IETF community not involved in the PANA working group
to review draft-ietf-pana-framework. Please speak up if you have done
such a review or attempted such a review and been unsuccessful. Let
us know what you
I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the
number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC
Editor currently limits the author count to five people. Recent IPR
WG discussions make it clear to me that authors retain significant copyright.
In one
Hello.
I'd like to draw your attention te the following BOF proposal. Please
discuss on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd appreciate comments and
indications of interest.
I'd also like to draw your attention to two resources besides the BOF proposal:
Dear Russ,
the authors can either be individuals or WGs. The practice to quote
authors for WG documents while they are a cooperative work seems a
wrong practice to me. Copyrights' period take into consideration the
date of the death of the last contributor. The name of all the
members of a WG
Russ Housley wrote:
I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the
number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC
Editor currently limits the author count to five people.
FYI, that is a violation of Article 6bis of Berne convention:
(1)
Russ,
I concur with Pasi's observations. I don't recall seeing a similar
structure in an RFC, where a part is informative, in what is
otherwise a standards track document.
Steve
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 08:50:04AM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Bill Strahm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You think that is bad - try going by your legal Middle Name.
Do you know how many systems require a first name and a middle
initial...
I once gave very serious
From: Bill Strahm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You think that is bad - try going by your legal Middle Name.
Do you know how many systems require a first name and a middle
initial...
I once gave very serious consideration to legally changing my first name to
J (just the one letter)
Russ == Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that
Russ limits the number of authors is in conflict with the IETF
Russ IPR policies. The RFC Editor currently limits the author
Russ count to five people. Recent IPR WG
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
Hi. Speaking as an individual, I'd like to make an explicit call for
members of the IETF community not involved in the PANA working group
to review draft-ietf-pana-framework. Please speak up if you have done
such a review or attempted such a review and
Right. I am proposing the addition of (Informative) after the
KeyNote section title. Also, I proposed assigning the KeyNote code
point from the specification required set of numbers instead of the
set that is associated with standards track documents.
Russ
At 11:07 AM 5/24/2006, Stephen
Sam:
We need a way to track the people that have copyright interest. I
had always assumed this was the author list. If we are going to
continue to limit the author count to five people, then there needs
to be a place where the people with copyright interest are listed in
the document.
If I remember correctly, we only limit the number of suthors on the
first page of the document.
It is perfectly acceptable to list a longer set of names inside the
document in an contributors section.
I also have concerns about who should be listed as an author and
have copyrights when a work
Russ == Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Sam: We need a way to track the people that have copyright
Russ interest. I had always assumed this was the author list.
Russ If we are going to continue to limit the author count to
Russ five people, then there needs to be a
* That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed
* significant chunks of text, you still need to get their clearance to
* do anything interesting with that text.
*
Who decides what constitutes a significant chunk?
Bob Braden
Sam:
If the people with copyright interest are the combination of the
authors plus the contributors, then we need to specify this in a BCP.
Does the RFC Editor have to contact the members of both lists during
Auth48? If so, I would suggest that the RFf Editor only needs a
positive reply
Authorship discussions have a long history in the sciences. I'm not
aware of any other scientific or technical publication that limits the
number of authors. (Indeed, I have had to extend the maximum author
count on a largish conference management system I run [edas.info] a few
times.) The
Sam, et al,
There are so many things tied up in this, that I am
afraid it is bound to turn into a rat-hole.
For one thing, I thought Russ was talking about the
complication that arise from whether or not the BCP 78/79
stuff applies to people who made some contribution but are
not
On 5/24/06, Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed
* significant chunks of text, you still need to get their clearance to
* do anything interesting with that text.
*
Who decides what constitutes a significant chunk?
the
*
* I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the
* number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC
* Editor currently limits the author count to five people. Recent IPR
* WG discussions make it clear to me that authors retain significant
On May 24, 2006, at 14:42, Russ Housley wrote:
If the people with copyright interest are the combination of the
authors plus the contributors, then we need to specify this in a BCP.
We might also want to suggest that the acknowledgment specifically
indicate if someone contributed text, as a
Henning,
IRT BCP 78/79 IPR statements, it's actually worse than
you indicate.
The issue is that (because of the Note Well) you can't
effectively take back a contribution and (because of the need
for proper attribution) you really cannot de-list someone who
has made any
The IETF does publish protocols that may or may not be viable in the
real world. I think PANA, after a significant clean up, might belong
in that category. I, for instance, have the following high-level issues:
** No real use cases out there, and no real hope either. 3GPP2 HRPD
recently
Disclaimer - I do work in the INT area, but have not been involved in
the PANA WG.
When this work was chartered, I failed to understand its need and the
deployment use cases. Subsequently, about 3 years ago, I recommended
against the use of PANA for the needs of my ex-employer. More recently,
I
Dropping techspec and ipr-wg from this part of the thread
The current limit of 5 seems to be motivated by formatting constraints and
maybe by the notion that vanity publishing should be prevented. It is
not clear to me that these motivations have legal standing and
essentially, for practical
Vijay == Vijay Devarapallli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Vijay On 5/24/06, Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* That means if you have unlisted authors who have contributed
* significant chunks of text, you still need to get their
clearance to * do anything
Russ == Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Sam: If the people with copyright interest are the
Russ combination of the authors plus the contributors, then we
Russ need to specify this in a BCP.
The people with copyright interest are whoever the court decides have
copyright
In case anyone is unsure, the actual policy being followed by
the RFC Editor will be found at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.authlist
Bob Braden for the RFC Editor
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
David Harrington wrote:
If I remember correctly, we only limit the number of suthors on the
first page of the document.
It is perfectly acceptable to list a longer set of names inside the
document in an contributors section.
It's not just the first page.
It also affects the reference
Andy,
For what it's worth, I agree with you. Having a single editor simplifies many
things, but having a authors list allows full credit to all parties.
John
- original message -
Subject:Re: RFC Author Count and IPR
From: Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05/24/2006
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
Hi. Speaking as an individual, I'd like to make an explicit call for
members of the IETF community not involved in the PANA working group
to review draft-ietf-pana-framework. Please speak up if you have done
such a review or attempted such a review
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bob Braden wrote:
*
* I am concerned that the current RFC Editor practice that limits the
* number of authors is in conflict with the IETF IPR policies. The RFC
* Editor currently limits the author count to five people. Recent IPR
* WG discussions make it clear to
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 24 12:46:43 2006
* X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00
autolearn=ham
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
* People can tell me that I've been misleading WG chairs and editors, but
what
* I've been saying in the WG Leadership tutorial is
Lucy Lynch wrote:
* a little history:
*
* 28 authors!
* http://www.arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/authdistr.html
*
* 20 authors!
* http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/authdistr.html
*
* Bob -
*
* I think the 5 author rule applies to the listing in the ID/RFC header
* and not
On 24 May 2006, at 20:52, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
I don't know if PANA will be useful, but I do know why some folks
are interested...
Have you taken a look at the I2 NetAuth work:
http://security.internet2.edu/netauth/
These academic networks are interested in both PANA and NEA as part
of
* Bob -
*
* I think the 5 author rule applies to the listing in the ID/RFC header
* and not to the authors listed under Author Information - is that
* correct?
*
* - lel
*
Lucy,
I neglected to answer your question directly. The authors are, by
definition, the people listed
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bob Braden wrote:
* Bob -
*
* I think the 5 author rule applies to the listing in the ID/RFC header
* and not to the authors listed under Author Information - is that
* correct?
*
* - lel
*
Lucy,
I neglected to answer your question directly. The authors are, by
*
* Bob -
*
* Following Jari's link to the document (ID) with 20 authors I found:
*
* http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-00.txt
*
* which lists 3 editors on the front page and includes a section (17)
* titled Author Information which includes
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bob Braden wrote:
*
* Bob -
*
* Following Jari's link to the document (ID) with 20 authors I found:
*
* http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-00.txt
*
* which lists 3 editors on the front page and includes a section (17)
* titled
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bob Braden wrote:
*
* Let me try re-stating my question. Is there a one-to-one relationship
* between the listed authors on an IETF document and ownership of the
* given document's Intellectual Property?
*
* - lel
*
*
Lucy,
It sounds like you need a lawyer.
On Wednesday, May 24, 2006 02:57:21 PM -0400 Russ Housley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. I am proposing the addition of (Informative) after the KeyNote
section title. Also, I proposed assigning the KeyNote code point from
the specification required set of numbers instead of the set that
Disclaimer - I wasn't even aware of this document before reading this
thread. However, I have now read it, so feel prepared to comment.
On Wednesday, May 24, 2006 03:11:29 PM +0200 Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, the distinction between well known ports and just assigned ports is
I am told during the last IETF's Social Event, Dave Clark made a
presentation that again observed that all of the ARPAnet's historicly
unsolved networking problems persist in the Internet today. I wasn't
there, but I am seeking a paper that I could reference that makes that
very point. Did Dave
On 5/24/06, Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
** EAP over IKEv2 seems like a more viable alternative: apparently
being proposed in 3G-WLAN interworking scenario as the access auth protocol.
the 3G-WLAN interworking scenario is similar to an enterprise user
gaining access to the
--On Wednesday, 24 May, 2006 19:06 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disclaimer - I wasn't even aware of this document before
reading this thread. However, I have now read it, so feel
prepared to comment.
...
(2) As I understand it, for ports above 1024, the IANA does
Hi,
On May 24, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 24, 2006 03:11:29 PM +0200 Eliot Lear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, the distinction between well known ports and just assigned
ports is
outdated. The overarching theme of the document is that the IANA
should
be
Hi,
On May 24, 2006, at 6:16 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This is not correct. They do, indeed, assign values.
Yes.
They also apply some minimal rules in doing so.
IANA does a basic sanity check and if there is any question as to
whether a port should be allocated, we pass the request to
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) '
draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4498
Title: The Managed Object Aggregation MIB
Author: G. Keeni
Status: Experimental
Date: May 2006
Mailbox:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pages:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4504
Title: SIP Telephony Device Requirements and
Configuration
Author: H. Sinnreich, Ed.,
S. Lass, C. Stredicke
Status:
53 matches
Mail list logo
