At 08:01 26-01-2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
The problem is the level of due care necessary such that he/she can
warrant that permissions has been "obtained" is not defined. Is the
reliance on RFC 5378 sufficient to deem that permissions has been
"obtained". For example, if Fred Flintstone submits text to the
maliing list, can I presume that he/she has received a copy of the
Note Well and has therefore has given permission for his text to be
used in the I-D? If he didn't, will I be liable for his failing to
adhere to RFC 5378 if I submit an I-D containing Fred's text?
According to IETF Trust, the new polices and procedures are effective
as from November 10, 2008 [1]. The announcement about the new
boilerplate text was sent on November 11, 2008 [2]. The General Area
Director sent an announcement on December 11, 2008 mentioning that
the IETF Note Well text have been updated [3]. The IAD posted a
message on December 17, 2008 to say that the Note Well text will be
updated on that day [4].
Based on the above timeline, I do not presume that Fred Flintstone
received a copy of the updated Note Well on or before November 10,
2008. It may be easier to ask Fred Flintstone about his contribution
than to determine when he was informed that the Note Well has been updated.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg05399.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg05509.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg54603.html
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf