Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 02:56:01PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Rather, what it does is the RfC says "the code must include whatever
license the trust document says.
When the code is produced, that link is dereferenced, the license is
determined, and the license is
On 2009-07-20, at 16:44, "Contreras, Jorge" > wrote:
I apologize if my unfortunate use of the term "future-proofing" has
caused angst. But I was referring to the proposal made by Harald
Alvestrand, as a member of the community, not a proposal made by the
Trust. Harald's proposal should n
Certicom's IPR statement dated 13 October 2008 lists some patents
that "may be necessary and essential to implementations of..." the
TLS extractor draft "when used with either: " RFC4492, RFC5289
or draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb. Check it out:
http://www.certicom.com/images/pdfs/certicom%20-ipr-con
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I think Harald's suggestion makes sense and should be implemented.
I agree.
Barry
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I think Harald's suggestion makes sense and should be implemented.
Joel
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Ok. So is the point then just not to have to issue a new RFC if the
Trust decides they want a different license? I.e. is that the
"future-proofing" that the proposed change is supposed to provid
> Ok. So is the point then just not to have to issue a new RFC if the
> Trust decides they want a different license? I.e. is that the
> "future-proofing" that the proposed change is supposed to provide?
I apologize if my unfortunate use of the term "future-proofing" has
caused angst. But I
John,
* There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an
IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a
document, make a series of "interim decisions" and announce
them five days before the end of that period, and then
leave the comment period termination date in place
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 02:56:01PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Rather, what it does is the RfC says "the code must include whatever
> license the trust document says.
> When the code is produced, that link is dereferenced, the license is
> determined, and the license is inserted in the code
I don't think it means that.
Rather, what it does is the RfC says "the code must include whatever
license the trust document says.
When the code is produced, that link is dereferenced, the license is
determined, and the license is inserted in the code.
No, no one can reasonably produce code un
On 7/20/09 at 9:09 AM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 18, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
[Numbering mine...]
The IETF Trust determines that there is a specific legal risk that
must be countered. In this case (***1***) the IETF Trust posts a
description of the specific risk and t
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 02:19:24PM -0400, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
>
> I also think that Harald's alternate language would work.
Is it a problem that this means that shipping code's license could
change at some time in the future? Are there practical issues to that
if (for instance) the Trust d
> -Original Message-
> From: trustees-boun...@ietf.org
> [mailto:trustees-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 8:41 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: trust...@ietf.org; wgcha...@ietf.org;
> rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org; i...@iab.org; i...@ietf.org
> Subje
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke
wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
...
3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for the
purpose of generating an input file for an ABNF parser), do
I need to include the BSD license text? If so, can so
Julian Reschke wrote:
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
...
Hi,
I'm trying to understand whether this change affects me.
So...
1) Many specs I'm editor of contain ABNF. Does it need to be labeled
as code component (I believe not).
In my understanding, all ABNF is code by definition (included in the
You are correct. I remembered the text differently, but should
have checked. I apologize.
john
--On Monday, July 20, 2009 12:23 -0400 Russ Housley
wrote:
> At 08:25 AM 7/20/2009, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
>> --On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Julia
>> I just got approval to attend IETF, and I am getting 2 airports for
>> Stockholm.
>>
>> Which is the one to use?
>
> As others have mentioned, there are several. Ryan Air uses Skavsta (NYO
> / ESKN) and Västerås (VST / ESOW). Those are fairly remote; count on
> several hours of bus transit.
>
>
At 08:25 AM 7/20/2009, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke
wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>> 3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for the
>> purpose of generating an input file for an ABNF parser), do
>> I need to include the BS
On Jul 18, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
2nd way:
The IETF Trust determines that there is a specific legal risk that
must
be countered. In this case the IETF Trust posts a description of the
specific risk and the proposed change to counter the risk. In this
case
the Trust pu
Thanks for the input Tom,
I see some difficulties with the references in this I-D.
a) The security section of this I-D says
see[I-D.ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework]
which is an informative reference.
I believe that security should be normative, not informative, even in
this, a
FWIW, while I think that I may be even more concerned than Scott
is --partially as a matter of personality and partially because
I've seen what I consider more symptoms-- we are in basic
agreement about the problem and the concerns. This is really
about Trust behavior vis-a-vis the community (or c
I think that the alternate text proposed by Harald meets the current
need without constraining the future.
Russ
Apologies for this being a month late.
From the rationale:
4.e -- this new section clarifies the legend requirements for Code
Components that are used in software under the BSD Li
Some history that may explain some of my and some other reaction to the
recent postings by the Trust
When the Trust was formed a number of us were quite worried that it
would begin to see itself as self directed and not as a function whose
purpose was to act at the direction of and in support of
On 7/19/09 1:29 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case?
I did not see a statement from the IETF asking for changes
nor did I see a statement from the Trust saying that there
are these issues that need to be fixed for legal or cosmetic
reasons
> Aren't RFC 5377/5378 (and subsequent discussion) such a statement?
did I miss the posting that lists each of the proposed chages
with a pointer to the specific request for change (or specific
need for change) in these RFCs?
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
--On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke
wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>> 3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for the
>> purpose of generating an input file for an ABNF parser), do
>> I need to include the BSD license text? If so, can somebody
>> explain
--On Monday, July 20, 2009 10:32 +0200 Henk Uijterwaal
wrote:
> John,
>
>>* There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an
>>IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a
>>document, make a series of "interim decisions" and announce
>>them five days before the end
Julian Reschke wrote:
...
3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for the purpose of
generating an input file for an ABNF parser), do I need to include the
BSD license text? If so, can somebody explain how to do that given the
constraints of the ABNF syntax?
...
Explanation: fo
> Aren't RFC 5377/5378 (and subsequent discussion) such a statement?
sorry - I must have missed the announcement by the trust that
they were responding to these RFCs
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Apologies for this being a month late.
From the rationale:
4.e -- this new section clarifies the legend requirements for Code
Components that are used in software under the BSD License.
In short, the user must include the full BSD License text or a shorter
pointer to it (which is set forth i
Scott O. Bradner wrote:
Isn't this what has essentially happened in this case?
I did not see a statement from the IETF asking for changes
Aren't RFC 5377/5378 (and subsequent discussion) such a statement?
(At least, that is where people told me to start when I asked why
we are doing this).
H
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
...
Hi,
I'm trying to understand whether this change affects me.
So...
1) Many specs I'm editor of contain ABNF. Does it need to be labeled as
code component (I believe not).
2) These specs also collect all ABNF fragments into an appendix,
containing the collecte
John,
* There is, as far as I know, no precedent for an
IETF-related body to announce a public comment period on a
document, make a series of "interim decisions" and announce
them five days before the end of that period, and then leave
the comment period termination date in place
32 matches
Mail list logo
