Russ
I would like greater clarity about the meaning of pre-5378.
Ed's original announcement said that the new regime was in effect from 12
November 2008 (no time specified).
Ed's revised text uses 'before 10 November 2008' (no time specified).
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.
We appear to have four zones of time (up to 23:59:59 9th Nov, 10th/11th Nov,
12th Nov sometime to 00:00:59 UTC 16th December, thereafter).
Please define, in a legally binding manner, pre- and post- 5378.
After which, we may need transitional arrangements for people who
posted in the
middle two time zones, particularly for those who published in the first two
weeks of December, thinking that they had a waiver and now find that they may
have claimed rights in their Contribution that they will never
possess (because
it contains old text from earlier Contributions).
(We may even have a fifth time zone, up until the time at which people were
informed of the new regime - at least up until the turn of the
year, not all our
emissions yet carried the new text referring to RFC5378 so anyone new to the
IETF could reasonably claim that their Contributions were being made under
RFC3978 as modified - but I digress :-(.
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Housley" <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
To: "Doug Ewell" <doug(_at_)ewellic(_dot_)org>
Cc: <trustees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review
andcomments on a
proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
> 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 Call now. However, if updates to the
> I-D are needed you may be faced with a problem depending on your
> situation. I presume that some or all of the text in the I-D was
> contributed before 10 Nov 2008. If so, then an update to that I-D
> requires you or the WG chair to determine if the people that made the
> contribution are willing to grant the additional rights required by
> RFC 5378. If so, you are done. If not, you will need some
> work-around like the one being discussed on this thread.
>
> If IETF Last Call or IESG Evaluation brings comments that require an
> update to the I-D, then you end up with the same situation.
>
> 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
> thread is implemented.
>
> > 2. What do the co-editors of the WG's other I-D, who were
> > previously also the co-editors of a related RFC that *is* quoted in
> > the current I-D, and at least one of whom has co-authored other
> > RFCs, need to do to allow the WG chairs to move *their* draft
> > forward into IETF Last Call? Our WG has stalled due to the
> > uncertainty surrounding the legal requirements and verbiage. None
> > of us are attorneys, AFAIK, but all of us would like to get
our work done.
>
> You can proceed to IETF Last Call now. As above, at some point
> contributors will be asked to grant the additional rights required by
> RFC 5378. If you can do so, there is no problem. If not, you will
> need some work-around like the one being discussed on this thread.
>
> Russ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf