ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC5378 alternate procedure (was: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary)

2008-12-16 03:54:24
Material comments:

- Section 3: RFC 5378 expected the date on which 5378 was effective to be set by the Trust (section 2.1), and explicitly did not want to cast into RFC stone the procedure by which the changeover date was determined.

- I disagree with the decision to allow *all* of a submission, including new text, to be 3978-boilerplated. As I've said before, my preferred resolution mechanism is to have a mechanism available (probably front-page disclaimer + details in the Contributors section) for listing pre-5378 sources from which material was copied without 5378 permission being granted by the authors. I believe the continued production of material that is licensed under 3978 only will be long-term harmful to the state of the IETF's IPR confusion.

                         Harald

John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.

I've just reposted this draft as
draft-klensin-rfc5378var-01.txt.  I didn't removing the material
I indicated I was going to remove because this version follows
too quickly on the previous one.

There are only two sets of changes, but the first seemed
sufficiently important to be worth a quick update:

(1) Alfred Hoenes caught several places in which I had
transposed digits or otherwise fouled up RFC numbers to which I
was making reference.  This type of work is sufficiently
confusing without that sort of stupid problem, for which I
apologize -- I thought I had proofread it carefully enough but
obviously did not.  They have been fixed.

(2) I realized that it was necessary for completeness to
un-obsolete 3948 and 4748 if they were going to be referenced,
or material from them picked up and copied into, documents, so I
have inserted a paragraph to take care of that.

Anyone who has successful read the -00 version and understood it
can safely ignore this one.  Anyone who has not yet read -00, or
who tried to read it and was confused by the numbering errors,
may find this version more helpful.

Comments are, of course, welcome on either one.

     john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>