- Original Message -
From: Bill Fenner fen...@fenron.com
To: Tom.Petch sisyp...@dial.pipex.com
Cc: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com; trust...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review andcomments on a
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
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.nbsp; Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF
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
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
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
- Original Message -
From: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
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
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
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
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 copied
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
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
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
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 run
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
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
Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com 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
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
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
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
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-holder notes
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
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
RFC
Theodore Tso tytso at mit dot edu 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
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 |
The Internet and Management Support for Storage (imss) working group in
the Operations and Management Area has concluded.
The IESG contact persons are Dan Romascanu and Ronald Bonica.
The mailing list will remain open for discussions concerning
implementations, questions and answers.
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Performance Analysis of Inter-Domain Path Computation Methodologies '
draft-dasgupta-ccamp-path-comp-analysis-02.txt as an Informational
RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5410
Title: Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY) General
Extension Payload for Open Mobile Alliance
BCAST 1.0
Author: A. Jerichow, Ed., L.
27 matches
Mail list logo
