desires of the
pre-5378 contributor, a tasking on the contributor that I wish to
avoid with the language proposed.
Ray
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: "Contreras, Jorge"
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:52:46 -0500
To: ; ;
Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed wo
>>> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:23 PM
>>> To: Marshall Eubanks
>>> Cc: Contreras, Jorge; Trustees; SM; ietf@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed
>>> work-arou
reras, Jorge wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:23 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks
Cc: Contreras, Jorge; Trustees; SM; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed
work-around to thePre-5378 Problem
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:23 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks
Cc: Contreras, Jorge; Trustees; SM; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed
work-around to thePre-5378 Problem
NEW PROPOSED
> For the above text to be more clear, I'd suggest something like:
>
> NEW PROPOSED
>
> c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations. If a Contributor
>desires to limit the right to make modifications and derivative
>works of an IETF Contribution, then one of the notice
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:23 PM
> To: Marshall Eubanks
> Cc: Contreras, Jorge; Trustees; SM; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed
> work-around t
> > NEW PROPOSED
> >
> >c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations. If a Contributor
> > desires to limit the right to make modifications and derivative
> s/desires/needs/
> I don't think that "desires" is appropriate here - as John pointed
> out, the contributor has no discreti
On Feb 9, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Ok, I think (hope) I understand the intention now. How about the
following as a friendly clarifying amendment to the proposed text:
Sorry, I'm still not happy with the proposed text. I think it is still
not clear. It is the simple English I ha
On 2/8/09 at 5:52 PM -0500, Jorge Contreras wrote:
iii. If a Contribution includes Pre-5378 Material and the
Contributor does not wish to allow modifications of such
Pre-5378 Material to be made outside the IETF Standards Process:
"does not wish" is not right. The issue is that the current
a
> Ok, I think (hope) I understand the intention now. How about the
> following as a friendly clarifying amendment to the proposed text:
Sorry, I'm still not happy with the proposed text. I think it is still
not clear. It is the simple English I have issue with. But maybe I
have just been looking
This works for me.
Ray
On Feb 9, 2009, at 1:01 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Jorge,
Yes, that takes us much closer, perhaps all the way there, at least
for the purposes of this workaround/patch.
IMO, at least.
john
--On Monday, February 09, 2009 12:29 PM -0500 "Contreras, Jorge" > wrot
At 09:29 09-02-2009, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Ok, I think (hope) I understand the intention now. How about the
John posted a reply (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg55265.html ) to
my message yesterday. Although there hasn't been any discussion
about the second item on
Jorge,
Yes, that takes us much closer, perhaps all the way there, at
least for the purposes of this workaround/patch.
IMO, at least.
john
--On Monday, February 09, 2009 12:29 PM -0500 "Contreras, Jorge"
wrote:
Ok, I think (hope) I understand the intention now. How about
the follow
ginal Message-
> From: SM [mailto:s...@resistor.net]
> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 7:04 PM
> To: Contreras, Jorge
> Cc: Trustees; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed
> work-around to thePre-5378 Problem
>
> At 14:24 08-02-2009,
c: Trustees; wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; i...@iab.org;
i...@ietf.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed
work-around to thePre-5378 Problem
Ray,
NEW:
iii. If a Contribution includes Pre-5378 Material and the
Contributor is unable (for
--On Sunday, February 08, 2009 4:03 PM -0800 SM
wrote:
...
The new Contributor would like to say that the document
contains Pre-5378 Material and he/she can only give rights for
modifications within the IETF Standards Process. The new
Contributor is unable to give any rights for non-IETF
d
--On Sunday, February 08, 2009 5:52 PM -0500 "Contreras, Jorge"
wrote:
John - thanks for that clarification. Would "elect" be less
value-laden than "wish"?
Jorge,
Makes no difference at all. Let me try this again, uncluttered
by the distinctions I was trying to make the last time
(di
At 14:24 08-02-2009, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Sorry for jumping into this thread late, but I would recommend leaving
6.c and 6.c.iii as proposed in the TLP draft that was circulated.
[snip]
I think "does not wish" is right, as it gives the new Contributor
maximum flexibility in withholding the
sed.
Ray
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: "Contreras, Jorge"
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:52:46
To: ; ;
Cc: ; ; ; ;
;
Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to
thePre-5378 Problem
John - thanks for that clarification. Woul
Title: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to thePre-5378 Problem
John - thanks for that clarification. Would "elect" be less value-laden than "wish"?
- Original Message -
From: John C Klensin
To: Contreras, Jorge; Thomas Na
--On Sunday, February 08, 2009 5:24 PM -0500 "Contreras, Jorge"
wrote:
Sorry for jumping into this thread late, but I would recommend
leaving 6.c and 6.c.iii as proposed in the TLP draft that was
circulated.
6.c.iii
OLD:
> iii. If a Contribution includes Pre-5378 Material and the
> Con
think is the desired approach.
> -Original Message-
> From: trustees-boun...@ietf.org
> [mailto:trustees-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:02 PM
> To: Ray Pelletier
> Cc: Trustees; wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
22 matches
Mail list logo
