Russ Housley wrote:
> I do not think that an Internet-Draft is needed.
The source is already a variant of xml2rfc input, from
there it's easy to arrive at plain text output for the
ordinary diff tools.
Adding version numbers for archiving working with the
diff tool could be as simple as "use
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> How about adding some weasel words, or even simply making the
> attribution requirement a "should"?
I tend to forget the details, but IIRC we have a SHOULD for an
attribution elsewhere (not in the part about code). If that is
very clear folks might arrive at the conclu
At 9:33 AM +1200 8/13/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
How about adding some weasel words, or even simply making the
attribution requirement a "should"? I think it's perfectly reasonable
to ask for attribution when possible, so any form of words that
doesn't "break" the BSD license in a narrow legali
I am working on a solution for this with the Secretariat. It is one
aspect of the web site redesign project. I do not think that an
Internet-Draft is needed.
Russ
At 11:40 AM 8/9/2008, Bert Wijnen \(IETF\) wrote:
(1) Archive older versions in a plain text format as forI-Ds
(for use with
How about adding some weasel words, or even simply making the
attribution requirement a "should"? I think it's perfectly reasonable
to ask for attribution when possible, so any form of words that
doesn't "break" the BSD license in a narrow legalistic sense
would do fine for me.
It's not like we're
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Scott Brim asked:
> > How can a description of how to use a technology infringe on a patent?
>
> It can't. :-)
This isn't an entirely accurate and I'm always worried about inaccurate
assertions from a lawyer. I think that one must be completely forthr
NEW DOCUMENT Dated 8-12-08
This is to announce that the IETF Trustees have just posted a revised
version of a draft policy on "Legal Provisions Related to IETF
Documents" dated 08-12-08 at:
http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html
There is also a Comparison document and a separate Co
Scott Brim asked:
> How can a description of how to use a technology infringe on a patent?
It can't. :-)
But neither does IETF have any responsibility to parse and evaluate any of
the frivolous claims made in IPR disclosures. Responding to loose IPR claims
in public here only gives them undeserve
On 8/12/08 12:02 PM, TS Glassey allegedly wrote:
As to the IPR Page - it does not
allow for updates of already filed IPR Statement's to include new IETF
documents which violate the patent rights after the posting of the IPR
Notice.
How can a description of how to use a technology infringe on a
Folks - I found several working flaws with the IPR disclosure page when I
went back to the IPR201 filing this AM to add several additional Internet
Draft's for notice of Patent Controls; As to the IPR Page - it does not
allow for updates of already filed IPR Statement's to include new IETF
documen
As someone who always prefers the BSD license, I agree with Simon on
#1 and #2. Saying "BSD except..." means it is a new type of license,
one that typical implementers will not expect.
One way to look at this is to consider what happens if someone treats
this as a real BSD license and doesn't
Hi,
I'm hoping to get in touch with an IETF-72 attendee who stayed at the
conference hotel, who did laundry and included their blue prague ietf
t-shirt size 2-xlarge and received back a size large instead.
I have you're 2xl and you have my large, please contact me so we can
exchange. :)
12 matches
Mail list logo
