Re. pre-5378 vs. post-5378 material, please note that in many
cases, an RFC may be post-5378, but the Internet-Drafts having
lead up to it may be pre-5378, or the lastest available Internet-
Draft may be post-5378, but earlier ones may be pre-5378.
In other words, just looking at things at the RFC level is not
enough. That may be obvious to many, just wanted to make sure
it doesn't get forgotten.
Regards, Martin.
At 07:07 09/01/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
John,
On 2009-01-10 10:32, John C Klensin wrote:
...
And note that makes a clear and plausible transition model:
(1) Pre-5378 documents exist under pre-5378 rules, so
any potential user for non-traditional purposes needs to
either figure out who the relevant authors are and get
their permission or decide the risk isn't worth worrying
about. If some of those authors/ contributors make
explicit transfers to the Trust, that is great, but none
of them have to take responsibility for identifying all
of the others.
(3) Post-5378 new documents are posted according to 5378
rules, with no exceptions.
(2) Post-5378 documents that incorporate pre-5378
materials must used 5378 rules for any material that is
new. For the earlier materials, and for sorting out
which is which, the burden falls on the potential user
for non-traditional purposes to either figure out who
the relevant authors are and get their permission,
determine that all relevant authors have already given
permission, or assume the risks. No one else --neither
the author(s)/ editor(s) of the new document nor the
Trust-- is required to take responsibility for pre-5378
contributors or contributions. Even an editor of the
new document that worked on the old material is not
required to make assertions about new rights on behalf
of his or her former employer.
Thanks John, I believe that is an excellent summary of the
viable options. My draft implicitly adds
(2.5) Post-5378 documents that incorporate pre-5378
materials whose original contributors have duly agreed are
posted according to 5378 rules, with no exceptions.
To my mind the main open issue is whether we want to
require authors to try for (2.5) before proceeding to (2).
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp
mailto:duerst(_at_)it(_dot_)aoyama(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf