Henk Uijterwaal writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>>> If a proposal from the IETF is in conflict with the terms of the Trust
>>> Agreement or the law then a Trustee has the obligation to veto it (a
>>> fairly academic possibility, I believe).
>>
>> I don't see how that is related to step 4 above
Simon Josefsson wrote:
If a proposal from the IETF is in conflict with the terms of the Trust
Agreement or the law then a Trustee has the obligation to veto it (a
fairly academic possibility, I believe).
I don't see how that is related to step 4 above. There is plenty of
mechanisms left for t
Olaf Kolkman writes:
> On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
I'm strongly concerned that this puts the decision making of what
is and
what is not a problem into the Trust's hands.
>>>
>>> No, there is always step 5: review of the new text or decision not
>>> to chang
Simon,
I wish that is how it would work. The most recent change of the TLP was
not following that process -- instead the Trust proposed the change and
implemented it after some delay -- and, for example, it resulted in a
change to how BSD licensed portions extracted from IETF documents that
is
On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I'm strongly concerned that this puts the decision making of what
is and
what is not a problem into the Trust's hands.
No, there is always step 5: review of the new text or decision not
to change
the text. If a suggestion isn't considere
Henk Uijterwaal writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Marshall Eubanks writes:
>>
>>> Comments sought for: Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP
>>
>> Is this a solution looking for a problem? RFC 5377 is an example of
>> where the IETF asks the Trust do something. What is wrong with using
>
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Marshall Eubanks writes:
Comments sought for: Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP
Is this a solution looking for a problem? RFC 5377 is an example of
where the IETF asks the Trust do something. What is wrong with using
the same approach in the future? The app
.org] On Behalf Of
Tadayuki Abraham HATTORI
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 8:14 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks; ietf@ietf.org; Working Group Chairs
Cc: Trustees; Internet Research Steering Group; IAB IAB; IESG;
ipr...@ietf.org; RFC Editor
Subject: Re: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisio
Marshall,
My apologies for not responding sooner to this. I've been in
offsite meetings for the last two days with very limited email
access and have only now been able to study your message and
scan the subsequent comments. Several aspects of these comments
have been influenced by those other n
Hello,
At 19:10 17-08-2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The Trust Legal Provisions document specifies exactly how the trust,
and people acting based on the trust, are doing things.
From Section 2e of the IETF Trust License Policy:
"These Legal Provisions may be amended from time to time by the IET
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 04:50:59PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> and getting it published as an RFC should not be difficult. If it takes
> 9 month to get that done, something else is broken.
One might be tempted to argue, indeed, that what is broken is the
proliferation of policies, written pr
The tlp-interest mail list is now active, for people who wish to
discuss TLP issues there.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tlp-interest
Regards
Marshall
On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Greetings;
During the last review of the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP),
it bec
Brian E Carpenter writes:
> On 2009-08-18 07:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> ...
>> This is another reason why the current approach of getting IETF
>> consensus on an RFC and publishing should be preferred. Compare RFC
>> 5377. It is a well defined process, and unless there is consensus that
>> th
I would agree with Brian, but phrase it differently.
The Trust Legal Provisions document specifies exactly how the trust, and
people acting based on the trust, are doing things.
There are (at least) two kinds of changes that can occur.
1) There can be changes in policy, particularly policy as
I agree with the proposed policy, except that I propose
calling it just "Procedure". It isn't policy, it's just
common sense about how to implement policy.
On 2009-08-18 07:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
> This is another reason why the current approach of getting IETF
> consensus on an RFC and pu
t;IESG" ;
; "RFC Editor"
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:02 AM
Subject: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Greetings;
During the last review of the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP),
it became clear that there is no clear
procedure for modifying th
SM:
Does the IETF Trust want to stand in as a replacement for the old IPR WG?
Certainly not. The changes that people might suggest to the TLP
should be much less grand.
Russ.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/list
Hi Marshall,
I'll take this opportunity to say that I was pleasantly surprised to
hear that the IETF Trust implemented a IETF Trust Records Retention
and Management Policy over two years ago.
At 08:02 17-08-2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Comments sought for: Standard Procedure for Modifying
Marc Blanchet writes:
> Marshall Eubanks a écrit :
>>
>> On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>>
>>> Marshall Eubanks a écrit :
Emergencies. An emergency is defined as "there is a problem with the
TLP that is likely to be abused". In these cases, the trust can
>>
Marshall Eubanks a écrit :
>
> On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>
>> Marshall Eubanks a écrit :
>>>
>>> Emergencies. An emergency is defined as "there is a problem with the
>>> TLP that is likely to be abused". In these cases, the trust can
>>> publish
>>> a modified text fo
Marshall Eubanks a écrit :
>
> Emergencies. An emergency is defined as "there is a problem with the
> TLP that is likely to be abused". In these cases, the trust can publish
> a modified text for a 2 week review period, then modify the TLP. The
> Trust must explain the reason for the chan
Dear Simon;
Some quick responses just for myself only.
On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Marshall Eubanks writes:
Comments sought for: Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP
Is this a solution looking for a problem? RFC 5377 is an example of
where the IETF asks the
On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Marshall Eubanks a écrit :
Emergencies. An emergency is defined as "there is a problem with the
TLP that is likely to be abused". In these cases, the trust can
publish
a modified text for a 2 week review period, then modify the TLP.
Marshall Eubanks writes:
> Comments sought for: Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP
Is this a solution looking for a problem? RFC 5377 is an example of
where the IETF asks the Trust do something. What is wrong with using
the same approach in the future? The approach would be that someon
Hi Marshall, all,
This is a good proposal.
Would it be possible to enhance the review periods (steps 5 and 6) from
30/14 days to something like 60/30 days, respectively? Many people will
need to go through corporate counsel on matters like this, which can be time
consuming. 30 days is a quite t
Greetings;
During the last review of the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP),
it became clear that there is no clear
procedure for modifying the TLP. The current TLP only states that a new
version may be published for community review but not who can ask for
a change,
where announcements are sent, wh
26 matches
Mail list logo
