under which the source code
is distributed are highly permissive and impose virtually no
conditions or requirements on end users.
[1]
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html
Folks does the Chrome EULA prevent anyone using it from participating in the
IETF?
Just a thought.
> Here's the relevant section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA:
>
> 11. Content licence from you
>
> 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold
> in Content that you submit, post
- Original Message -
From: "Olaf Kolkman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
>
> I can imagine that the posting of an I-D may cause Pavlovian reactions
> but
Spencer, thanks for the comments. See below for the details. I reissued a
draft with the editorial changes:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-forces-mib-08.txt
Regards,
-Robert
"Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/01/2008 04:07:03
PM:
>
> Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> I'm tempted to say that if it takes the authors months to update the
>> document with the suggested change, then, well, a publication delay of
>> several months is what they deserve :-).
>
>
> The only problem with this comment is that some r
Julian Reschke wrote:
> I'm tempted to say that if it takes the authors months to update the
> document with the suggested change, then, well, a publication delay of
> several months is what they deserve :-).
The only problem with this comment is that some readers might think the smiley
mean
Hi, Robert,
Thanks for the quick response on all the comments - to be explicit, version 8
addresses all my comments, except for one question (below).
It actually could be OK to retain the OtherMsg name and definition, if there is
a reason to do so (one reason might be "deployed systems use this
At 2:09 PM +0200 9/3/08, Julian Reschke wrote:
>I'm tempted to say that if it takes the authors months to update the
>document with the suggested change, then, well, a publication delay of
>several months is what they deserve :-).
+1
Given that the great majority of documents in the "authors are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Olaf Kolkman rote:
>
>> Personally I would like to see that whatever document enters into
>> the RFC-Production function (to use the terminology from the RFC
>> Editor model[*]) has a clean copy in the repository. That allows for
>> a very clean interface between the str
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
>
> Olaf Kolkman rote:
>
> > Pe
Olaf Kolkman rote:
> Personally I would like to see that whatever document enters into
> the RFC-Production function (to use the terminology from the RFC
> Editor model[*]) has a clean copy in the repository. That allows for
> a very clean interface between the streams and the RFC-producer. So,
>
Essentially, this note is another me too.
On Sep 2, 2008, at 11:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
(iv) If that note is acceptable to the authors/ editors/
WG/ etc., generation of a document that incorporates the
changes. That version is, or is not, posted at the
dis
12 matches
Mail list logo
