----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Fenner" <fenner(_at_)fenron(_dot_)com>
To: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Russ Housley" <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>;
<trustees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review andcomments on a
proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Tom.Petch
<sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com> wrote:
Ed's original announcement also placed significance on 0100 UTC on 16th
December
appearing to allow a grace period up until then during which 5378 was not in
effect, since old boiler plate was acceptable.
This is not quite accurate. RFC 5378 became BCP 78 at the time of
publication on November 11th; even the old text says
" This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights."
So if you published an I-D with those words in it after RFC 5378 was
published as BCP 78, then that I-D is subject to the rights, licenses
and restrictions contained in RFC 5378.
Thanks for the correction. I also had in mind contributions to mailing lists
where the Note Well - eg the one sent out to this list on 1 January 2009 -
references RFC5378 (or not as is the case in other settings) rather than BCP78.
I am unclear whether this is by design or whether it is something that has yet
to be brought in line with current thinking.
Isn't it complicated?
Tom Petch
Bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf