, March 07, 2009 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Abstract on Page 1?
Scott Lawrence wrote:
...
This is a trivial change for the generation tools to make - at worst it
will make one generation of diffs slightly more difficult (and I'd be
happy to trade one generation of poor diffs for this, so for me
At 08:23 17-03-2009, Tom.Petch wrote:
On an allied topic, I notice that a recent I-D - draft-ietf-sidr-arch-06.txt -
published March 9, 2009, had a running heading which included 'November 2008'.
Paranoid as I am, I immediately link this date to RFC5378 and the
time when the
IETF Trust
+1.
I agree.
Regards,
Ed Juskevicius
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Julian Reschke
Sent: March 7, 2009 3:46 AM
To: Scott Lawrence
Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Abstract on Page 1?
Scott Lawrence wrote
Scott Lawrence wrote:
...
This is a trivial change for the generation tools to make - at worst it
will make one generation of diffs slightly more difficult (and I'd be
happy to trade one generation of poor diffs for this, so for me just
don't worry about fixing the diff tools).
...
At this
On 2009-03-04 16:33 Margaret Wasserman said the following:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that
the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the
draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1.
I don't believe that there are any legal
This seems like a really good idea from a usability perspective,
but I've not noticed any feed back from our official or unofficial legal
community.
My concern would be whether there is a legal requirement that the
copyright and other similar declarations be in the front of a document.
I'd
On Mar 7, 2009, at 1:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
So, I'm not against another re-organization, but, in this time,
PLEASE:
- plan it well (think of all consequences for both I-Ds and RFCs)
- make the requirements precise and actually implementable
(remember: must be on page 1 :-)
- give
On Mar 7, 2009, at 12:21 PM, David Morris wrote:
I can't recall any examples of any document or source file where the
copyright was at the end. It certainly isn't common.
agree it is unusual and weird but much of resiprocate has them at the
end because some people had a hard time with the
At 14:02 07/03/2009, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
On 2009-03-04 16:33 Margaret Wasserman said the following:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that
the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the
draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1.
I don't
TSG tglassey at earthlink dot net wrote:
Then the template has to be changed. Will the IETF still continue to
accept documents formatted the old way or will it mandate this change
everywhere - and gee - that could be our own little stimulus package -
we may have to hire someone to move the
go.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Wed 3/4/2009 10:55 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Abstract on Page 1?
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:50:19PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
The following text must be included on the first page of each
in the middle).
So, to me at least, move status and copyright to the end gets
a lot less attractive if that is ...end of I-D but not RFCs
rather than both.
It also leads me to wonder about alternate solutions if the
problem to be solved is really abstract on page 1.
For example, if we are talking about I
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that
the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the
draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1.
I don't believe that there are any legal implications to moving our
IPR information
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org wrote:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the
boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and
the abstract moves up to page 1.
Oh, yes please. That would
On 3/4/09 10:33 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org wrote:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that
the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the
draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1.
I like this suggestion a lot.
Melinda
On Mar 4, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that
the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the
draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1.
I don't believe that there are
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the
boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft,
and the abstract moves up to page 1.
I don't believe that there are any legal implications to moving our IPR
information
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:50:19PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
The following text must be included on the first page of each IETF
Document as specified below:
Some of us may regard the requirement of standard legal boilerplate
taking precedence over technical content to be a symptom of a
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Margaret Wasserman m...@lilacglade.org
wrote:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that the
boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the draft, and
the abstract moves up to page 1.
Oh, yes please. That would
+1, after San Francisco. Let's give the volunteer tool authors some breathing
space.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 4 mrt 2009, at 16:33, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I would like to propose that we re-format Internet-Drafts such that
the boilerplate (status and copyright) is moved to the back of the
draft, and the abstract moves up to page 1.
I don't believe that there are any legal implications to
21 matches
Mail list logo
