Total of 166 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 16 00:53:02 EST 2009
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
9.64% | 16 | 8.46% |98027 | john-i...@jck.com
7.23% | 12 | 6.00% |69483 | hous...@vigilse
Theodore Tso wrote:
So it's a problem if every single I-D and RFC author is going to have
to consult their own counsel before deciding that won't get into legal
trouble when guaranteeing that all of their text is appropriately
licensed.
I certainly won't be volunteering to edit any more I-D
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:50:46AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> Consider the threat model here.
>
> This threat applies ONLY to material that the Trust licenses to
> third parties (such as, say, the IEEE) for inclusion and
> modification in their standards. (Just reprinting or translating an
Tom:
What then is post-5378? Is it material published on or after November 10th?
Yes.
Russ
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Simon:
>>For the people who want this draft published (and perhaps have a pending
>>implementation), would you please humour me by offering some usage
>>scenarios, other than debugging or toys, which would meet security
>>review and which are not covered by the four points which the
>>patent-hol
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
All -- It's been pointed out to me that I may have been answering the
wrong question, or at least only a subset of the full question, in my
posting of last night, so I'll clarify below in some detail.
But first, for those whom I haven't met before, you should know that I'
I had given my +1 a bit early after having seen
"the techniques
for sending and receiving authorizations defined in TLS Authorizations
Extensions (version draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt) do not
infringe upon RedPhone Security's intellectual property rights"
Anyway, there
John C Klensin wrote:
I have to agree with Andrew and Tom.
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
lengthy textual suggestion on a mailing list, and I copied that
suggestion into a draft without any paraphrasing, a plain-s
Russ Housley writes:
> Phil:
>
>>For the people who want this draft published (and perhaps have a pending
>>implementation), would you please humour me by offering some usage
>>scenarios, other than debugging or toys, which would meet security
>>review and which are not covered by the four points
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:08AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some lengt
On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:08AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
lengthy text
>IANAL, and I'm only following about 10% of this thread, but the
>phrase "fair use" does not appear in RFC 5378. Maybe it should.
Fair use is specific to the U.S. Most other countries have similar
legal concepts under other names like fair dealing, but they all
differ in minor ways. This would r
Phil:
For the people who want this draft published (and perhaps have a pending
implementation), would you please humour me by offering some usage
scenarios, other than debugging or toys, which would meet security
review and which are not covered by the four points which the
patent-holder notes a
All -- It's been pointed out to me that I may have been answering the
wrong question, or at least only a subset of the full question, in my
posting of last night, so I'll clarify below in some detail.
But first, for those whom I haven't met before, you should know that I'm
a lawyer -- the lawyer w
More to the point, the question at hand was to what happens to mailing
list discussions (or face to face discussions) which took place
*before* RFC 5378 was published. John's observation was that it
doesn't matter when the I-D or RFC is published, even if it is
published *after* RFC 5378, if it co
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:08AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
>> effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
>> lengthy textual suggestion on a mailing list, and I cop
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:08AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> The reason why I do not agree with this reasoning is that these
> rights are claimed through authorship.
That claim is precisely what I think is false, because RFC 5378 has
defined "Contributor" in a particular way, and then ass
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
I have to agree with Andrew and Tom.
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
lengthy textual suggestion on a mailing list, and I copied that
suggestion into a draft with
- Original Message -
From: "Russ Housley"
To: "Tom.Petch" sisyp...@dial.pipex.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:36 PM
> Correction: RFC 5378 was published on 10 November 2008.
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/2008-November/002142.html
Thanks for the correction.
I have to agree with Andrew and Tom.
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
lengthy textual suggestion on a mailing list, and I copied that
suggestion into a draft without any paraphrasing, a plain-sense
reading of 5378's d
I'm happy with the answer re. use of pre-5378 RFC material
on an IETF mailing list.
I'm not sure about the answer re. use in an Internet-Draft.
With respect to this, I think what Randy wanted to ask is:
Do we need to get contributor premission before using
material from an email posting made unde
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:38 PM +1300 1/15/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
IANAL, but it seems to me that we should proceed on the assumption
that this would fall under fair use provisions. Anything else
would seem unreasonable to me.
IANAL, and I'm only following about 10% of this thread,
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Sullivan"
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: RFC 5378 "contributions"
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:33:35PM -0500, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
> > No, absolutely not. Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF standards
process has never
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Fenner"
To: "Tom.Petch"
Cc: "Russ Housley" ; ;
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review andcomments on a
proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Tom
24 matches
Mail list logo
