ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to the Pre-5378 Problem

2009-02-06 11:18:02
Agreed.  Good comments!   Thank You.

Best Regards,

Ed  J.

-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com] 
Sent: February 6, 2009 11:11 AM
To: Thomas Narten; Ed Juskevicius
Cc: Trustees; wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Contreras, Jorge; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to the Pre-5378
Problem



--On Friday, February 06, 2009 10:30 -0500 Thomas Narten
<narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:

But for case iii), there are two "contributors" at issue. The
one submitting the document, and possible pre-5378
contributors who's text has been included in the document.
...
For case iii), it should remain clear that the document
author/contributor is agreeing to the full 5378 coverage for
his/her contribution (made subequent to 5378), but that they
take no position regarding the pre-5378 text that may have
been incorporated.
...

Yes.  I thought I pointed this distinction out weeks ago, but
perhaps I'm losing my mind.  The goal is not to exempt authors
from asserting their own compliance to 5378, but to avoid their
having to make any assertions on behalf of others (or even to
explicitly identify those other beyond our normal requirements
for acknowledgement).

     john


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

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