In other organisations, when I see (what has been called here), an
"over the wall" list of changes, I usually expect, and usually receive,
in addition to the list of changes (along with what used to be there)
all of which exists here, some kind of explanation why the changes are
being proposed. Th
We are currently experiencing some problems with the agenda tool, and
until they are addressed we are not able to generate an html or text
version of the agenda. We hope to have the tool repaired shortly.
Alexa
On Jun 23, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
I do note, with favour, that
I do note, with favour, that it at least implies there will still be
text (and html) agendas in the future.
Leslie.
... still trying to figure out why there is only a PDF version of the
IETF75 agenda on the current website...
IETF Chair wrote:
For the last 10 months, the IETF Secretariat a
> The statement in 2.b, in conjunction with a July 2009 Effective
> Date (see the top of the document), leaves documents published
> between the presumptive Effective Date of the procedures in
> effect today and that date in a strange sort of never-never
> land, since 2.b doesn't mention 5378.
T
Hi,
Here is a summary of Last Call comments:
1) Cullen Jennings told chairs to pay attention;
[dbh: no action required.]
2) Henning Schulzrinne concerned about slowing approvals, and applying
to new protocols and extensions.
[dbh: added text about the different needs for new protocols and
exten
For the last 10 months, the IETF Secretariat at the direction of the
IAOC and input form the IESG and the IETF community has been working on
an overhaul of the IETF web site. The goals for the new site were simple
and included:
1) Make it easier for those who are new to the IETF to get involved;
> "Marshall" == Marshall Eubanks writes:
Marshall> Monte is Founder and Executive Contact, xiph.org, and is
Marshall> responsible (as much as any person) for Ogg / Vorbis. He
Marshall> was also one of my sources from before.
The message you quoted is entirely non-responsive to th
Monte is Founder and Executive Contact, xiph.org, and is responsible
(as much as any person)
for Ogg / Vorbis. He was also one of my sources from before.
Regards
Marshall
Begin forwarded message:
From: Christopher Montgomery
Date: June 23, 2009 2:32:07 PM EDT
To: Marshall Eubanks
Subject:
On Jun 23, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
This is another side-discussion that may be useful to do publicly,
forwarded with Sam's permission.
This discussion brings up another (subtler) point about allowing
re-licensing between works licensed under the BSD license directly and
works
This is another side-discussion that may be useful to do publicly,
forwarded with Sam's permission.
This discussion brings up another (subtler) point about allowing
re-licensing between works licensed under the BSD license directly and
works licensed under the newly proposed BSD-license-via-IETF-p
I find myself in complete agreement with John's message. I'll admit
that I probably don't have the time or desire to actually examine the
IAOC's actions if they were to be accountable to the community.
However, when I was involved in drafting BCP 101 it was my assumption
that the IAOC would be acc
Dear Simon;
Just to save people from having to wade through lots of text
unnecessarily, the major issue we are discussing here
is the "license by reference" aspect of the proposed TLP's BSD license
requirements.
On Jun 23, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Marshall Eubanks writes:
--On Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:49 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
wrote:
>...
>> After all of this, the Trust developed consensus around the
>> license by reference option.
>>
>> So, I feel that the Trustees have done due diligence here.
>>
>> Of course, there is never a final word on these matters. I
Marshall Eubanks writes:
> Simon asked that this go to the IETF list.
Thanks for moving this back to the IETF list. I believe these
discussions should be public. Many considerations appears to have been
made that the wider IETF community is unaware of.
I would expect information like this to
Simon asked that this go to the IETF list.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marshall Eubanks
Date: June 23, 2009 11:30:50 AM EDT
To: Simon Josefsson
Cc: Trustees
Subject: Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust
LegalProvisions (TLP)
On Jun 23, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Simon Josefsso
I too do not believe that reducing the review period of TLP changes is
at all reasonable.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Joel
Yes, I referred to that list when I quoted "classical programming code".
However, as the list does not include a set of recognized programming languages,
I thought that the issue was left open.
By code marker I assume you mean ... ,
which is itself a kind of pseudocode.
Y(J)S
-Origin
Yaakov Stein writes:
> Could you change the wording "BSD License" to "revised BSD License"
> to avoid confusion with the "original BSD license"
> that contained the infamous "advertising clause" ?
I support making that change too. (It was pointed out earlier.)
/Simon
__
There is an explicit list of what is automatically covered as code.
After discussion, that list does not (did not, the last time I checked)
include pseudo-code.
Document authors are free to mark their pseudo-code using the code
marker if they want it treated as code.
The problem, as far as I a
Could you change the wording "BSD License" to "revised BSD License"
to avoid confusion with the "original BSD license"
that contained the infamous "advertising clause" ?
Is pseudocode covered by the terms of redistribution of source code in section
4 ?
The last line of the list of code component
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:20:33AM -0400, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
> aren't errors caused by hurried or sloppy work by the Trust, they are
> reasonable points of disagreement over policy and interpretation. It's
> certainly legitimate for you to raise and discuss these points, but you
> shouldn't
John C Klensin writes:
> Assuming that I'm not the only one who sees the recent patterns
> as problematic
I don't think you are alone with that impression. The process you
outline (posting preliminary versions in draft-* form) sounds great to
me. I suggested it earlier, and the IETF Trust resp
> But,
> using this draft with the serious problem Simon spotted and the
> minor "no justification for adding boilerplate" one that I
> spotted as the most recent of what have been many examples, it
> appears that the IAOC/Trustees are composed of human beings with
> many other things on their
--On Tuesday, June 23, 2009 09:54 +0200 Simon Josefsson
wrote:
> Marshall Eubanks writes:
>
>> 2.e -- the review period for TLP changes has been changed
>> from 30 to 14 days, which is consistent with the last-call
>> period for other IETF documents
>
> John gave several reasons why this isn
The IESG has prepared a draft statement as a companion
document. Since the two are related, the IESG would like the
community to comment on the two documents at the same time.
On behalf of the IESG,
Russ
--- Draft IESG Statement ---
This IESG Statement obsoletes all earlier IESG Statements
Marshall Eubanks writes:
> 2.e -- the review period for TLP changes has been changed from 30 to
> 14 days, which is consistent with the last-call period for other IETF
> documents
John gave several reasons why this isn't good justification, and I agree
with them. Reading his thoughts, my opinio
--On Tuesday, June 23, 2009 01:32 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
wrote:
> The IETF Trustees invite your comments on the proposed
> revisions to the "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents"
> (TLP) policy. The proposed revisions are in rtf, pdf and doc
> formats and located at:
> http://trustee.ie
27 matches
Mail list logo
