--On Thursday, January 29, 2009 16:26 -0500 Dean Anderson
wrote:
>...
> You comment explains exactly the problems with RFC5378. This
> is why we, Glassey, myself, others advocated for having the
> contributor hold the copyright, as is done in other standards
> groups, like the ITU, The Open Gr
On Jan 21, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
At 11:58 PM 1/20/2009, Dean Willis wrote:
Given that we've historically weeded out the contributor-list on a
document to "four or less", even if there were really dozens of
"contributors" at the alleged insistence of the RFC Editor, I don't
On Jan 21, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Bob Braden wrote:
Whoa! This contains several errors of fact and implication. The
number authors named
on the front page of an RFC are generally limited to 5 (there are
occasional exceptions for
good cause). This rule was arrived at after discussions in
the I
At 11:58 PM 1/20/2009, Dean Willis wrote:
Given that we've historically weeded out the contributor-list on a
document to "four or less", even if there were really dozens of
"contributors" at the alleged insistence of the RFC Editor, I don't
see how any older document or even a majority of ne
Dean:
The RFC Editor is asking the authors. That is the list of people
that is readily available. If the authors cannot speak for all
Contributors, then the document will have to wait until a work-
around is found.
Given that we've historically weeded out the contributor-list on a
document
On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
The RFC Editor is asking the authors. That is the list of people
that is readily available. If the authors cannot speak for all
Contributors, then the document will have to wait until a work-
around is found.
Given that we've histor
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
- Original Message -
From: "Russ Housley"
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 the correction.
Correction: RFC 5378 was published on 10 November 2008.
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/2008-November/002142.html
Russ
At 11:20 AM 1/14/2009, Russ Housley wrote:
Tom:
RFC 5378 was published on 11 November 2008, and it went into effect
on that date. Pre-5378 material refers
Tom:
RFC 5378 was published on 11 November 2008, and it went into effect
on that date. Pre-5378 material refers to contributions that were
made before the BCP went into effect. I do not believe that anyone
tracked the posting time at a finer granularity than a day.
Russ
The At 04:41 AM 1/
> The RFC Editor is asking the authors. That is the list of people
> that is readily available. If the authors cannot speak for all
> Contributors, then the document will have to wait until a work-around is
> found.
In this case, wouldn't it make sense to (temporarily?) suspend the rule that
Hi Russ,
On 1/12/09 2:15 PM, "Russ Housley" wrote:
[...]
>
> The RFC Editor is asking the authors. That is the list of people
> that is readily available. If the authors cannot speak for all
> Contributors, then the document will have to wait until a work-around is
> found.
>
In this case, w
Ed,
I'd like to thank the Trustees for working to resolve this
situation. Unfortunately, after reviewing the new text, I don't think
it's really adequate.
To recap, the the old text required the contributor to affirm (and
consequently to verify) that adequate permissions had been obtained to
pub
John:
>...
> If the document is approved without change, then the RFC
> Editor will ask each of the authors to grant the additional
> rights required by RFC 5378. If this cannot be done, then the
> document will sit in the queue until some work-around like the
> one being discussed on this thre
--On Monday, January 12, 2009 16:07 -0500 Russ Housley
wrote:
>...
> If the document is approved without change, then the RFC
> Editor will ask each of the authors to grant the additional
> rights required by RFC 5378. If this cannot be done, then the
> document will sit in the queue until som
Doug:
I hope this response answers your pragmatic questions.
1. What do I, as editor of an I-D and previously editor of a
related RFC that is not quoted in the current I-D, need to do in
order to allow the WG chairs to move my draft forward into IETF Last Call?
You can proceed to IETF Last
"Ed Juskevicius" writes:
> The new legend text, if implemented, would do the following:
> a. Provide Authors and Contributors with a way to identify (to the
> IETF Trust) that their contributions contain material from pre-5378
> documents for which RFC 5378 rights to modify the mat
gards,
Ed J.
-Original Message-
From: TSG [mailto:tglas...@earthlink.net]
Sent: January 8, 2009 6:21 PM
To: Ed Juskevicius
Cc: 'IETF Discussion'; ietf-annou...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; i...@iab.org;
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; wgcha...@ietf.org; 'Trustees'
Subjec
Ed Juskevicius wrote:
Ed - you nor the rest of this list is going to like this retort but I
would ask that you read all of it prior to flushing the response.
The purpose of this message is twofold:
1) To summarize the issues that some members of our community
have experienced since the pub
Ed,
Thanks for this.
As I understand it, the proposal boils down to adding a disclaimer to
affected documents that reads:
"This document contains material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions
published before November 10, 2008 and, to the Contributor’s knowledge,
the person(s) controlling t
20 matches
Mail list logo
