Hi,
Some area directors do office hours where they're available
in case folks want to chat about a discuss or other topic. Sean
and I haven't been doing that to date but have decided to give
it a try this time.
So the SEC ADs will be available in room 202 on Thursday from
1300-1500, if you want
The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and
comment.
Russ
=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
Note Well
This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
BCP 79; please
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote
The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and
comment.
Russ
This same text would read better to me if reordered:
NOTE WELL
- By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
I don't much like the change in approach. I think it will be too easy
to brush off; the current approach has enough substance that people
who brush it off put themselves in a very weak position.
The old text was written with legal advice. What does counsel say
about the new proposal?
Regards
Looks much better, people might even read it.
- If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
applications, you need to disclose that fact.
Perhaps disclose that fact promptly.
Pete's been
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Perhaps disclose that fact promptly.
+1
Since not everyone is aware of what's going on in the IRTF: we recently made a
minor modification to our IPR statement to that effect. See
https://www.irtf.org/ipr
One possibility would be
This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and seems
like a good direction.
One suggestion: it would be good for the reference to BCP 79 be accompanied, at
least in the web page in question, with a link to the BCP
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt). I could imagine
On 06/11/2012 15:25, John Levine wrote:
Looks much better, people might even read it.
- If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
applications, you need to disclose that fact.
Perhaps
Hi,
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:34, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
There is a point of disagreement between IRTF and IETF IPR Policy, or at
least there appeared to be yesterday in ICCRG.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#section-6.1.3 states that a person who
knows that someone else
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and seems
like a good direction.
Can you explain your reasoning why this seems like a good direction.
For example, how would the new Note Well improve our situation in
the
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and
seems like a good direction.
Can you explain your reasoning why this seems like a good direction.
Not being a lawyer, I
On 11/6/2012 10:00 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and
comment.
Russ
=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
Note Well
This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
doesn't have all the nuances. The
I am noncom-eligible. After hearing the situation of Mr. Eubanks, I support the
recall.
Regards,
Yiu
Vincent,
Thanks, I think this will help the document.
Mike
On 11/6/12 4:38 PM, Vincent Roca vincent.r...@inria.fr wrote:
Mike,
Thanks for your comments. It seems your email didn't show up in the
fecframe
list (it's not in the mailing list archive either) which explains why we
didn't answer
so
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
{ the directive here is remarkably soft. much too soft, IMO. a sentence
structure that's a bit too complicated. so...}
A contribution by you consists of anything you write, say or discuss in any
IETF context. If you
Brian:
Jorge has reviewed this text. He says that the current text and this proposed
text are both summaries. Both say that it is important to read the BCP to get
all of the details.
Russ
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't much like the change in approach. I
Hi,
Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it necessary to tinker with
the Note Well?
As for the substance, I don't like the text for two reasons that can be
found inline.
Stephan
On 11.6.2012 10:00 , IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL
On 11/6/2012 10:14 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
That puts the most important information higher up the text and, to
my eyes at least, makes it more prominent.
+1
On 11/6/2012 12:38 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:25
AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
{ the directive
On 06/11/2012 17:43, Russ Housley wrote:
Brian:
Jorge has reviewed this text. He says that the current text and this
proposed text are both summaries. Both say that it is important to read the
BCP to get all of the details.
OK, good. On reflection my feeling is that we definitely need
Stephan:
Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear to us
that we need to use very plain language to explain the responsibilities to
participants.
Russ
On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi,
Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it
On 11/6/2012 2:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
but I remain bothered by taking
out all the details. I understand there is a problem of attention span,
but there are not really all that many words in the current version.
Simple human factors:
You cannot expect anyone to process a mass
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/6/2012 12:38 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:25
AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
{ the directive here is remarkably soft. much too soft, IMO. a
sentence structure that's a bit too complicated. so...}
On 06/11/2012 19:30, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/6/2012 2:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
but I remain bothered by taking
out all the details. I understand there is a problem of attention span,
but there are not really all that many words in the current version.
Simple human factors:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
IETF Chair
=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
- You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
publicly archived.
[WEG] I might suggest a small tweak (in brackets
Way too simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. Can't we play
lawyer-on-the-list and make it a full page again?
--
Sent from my mobile device. Thanks be to lemonade!
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/
-Original message-
From: IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org
To: IETF
On 11/6/2012 12:46 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
Way too simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. Can't we play
lawyer-on-the-list and make it a full page again?
--
Sent from my mobile device. Thanks be to lemonade!
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/
-Original message-
Olafur Gudmundsson o...@ogud.com writes:
If you agree with this petition please either comment on this posting,
With regret, if you still need more signatures, you can add my name to
the list and I am nomcom eligible.
--
Wes Hardaker
SPARTA, Inc.
Hi Russ,
On 11.6.2012 14:01 , Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
Stephan:
Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear
to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the
responsibilities to participants.
That's an interesting statement. To summarize
On 11.6.2012 16:17 , Scott O Bradner s...@sobco.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases.
What I am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer
that I was speaking
Lynn,
As one of the original signers has been challenged to be NomCom Eligible
I put forward two more signers
Wes Hardaker wjh...@hardakers.net Sparta
Joao Luis Silva Damas, j...@isc.org ISC
At this time please do not send me any more signatures
as each person that indicates that
Yo, add my name, too. Now.
I'm NomCom eligible and shit according to RFC 3777, and the last time I
talked at Marshall was at the Philly plenary a few years ago and he was a
total dick. I don't give seven fucks if he blows his brains out because he
loses his title, I want him gone. The IETF
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Stephan Wenger wrote:
So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so non-third-party disclosures that
have been made over the last 4+ months, only a few may or may not be
late; the rest almost certainly is not.
Do we have a list of known IPR for which no disclosure was filed
I'm not quite sure who is the current sergeant-at-arms for the
ietf@ietf.org list, but I request him/her to take immediate
action in response to the highly offensive message just posted,
allegedly by Carlos Caliente verywarmc...@gmail.com.
It is obnoxious in too many ways to mention.
If intended
On 11.6.2012 17:17 , Paul Wouters p...@cypherpunks.ca wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Stephan Wenger wrote:
So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so non-third-party disclosures that
have been made over the last 4+ months, only a few may or may not be
late; the rest almost certainly is not.
Do we
AFAIK it's still Jordi. Anyway, I checked the attendee lists for the last 5
meetings, and didn't see any Carlos Caliente, although given the gmail address,
it's probably a pseudoname.
On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm not quite sure who is the current sergeant-at-arms
correct - except that the IRTF has adopted the same disclosure requirements
Scott
On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org wrote:
On 11.6.2012 16:17 , Scott O Bradner s...@sobco.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
Not
After a very brief consultation with the IESG, I have asked the Secretariat to
block the verywarmc...@gmail.com email address from further posting to this
mail list, and I have asked the Secretariat to delete the message from the mail
list archive so that searches will not bring it up.
On
On 11/6/2012 1:47 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi Russ,
On 11.6.2012 14:01 , Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
This isnt complex - if there is a fraud here lets let the FTC deal with
it. That is how to keep our hands clean.
So will the Chair ask the IETF Counsel to formally contact
Stephan:
Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear
to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the
responsibilities to participants.
That's an interesting statement. To summarize the (long) message below, I
don't think that empirical data
I do not argue that sooner is not better w/r to IP disclosures, however see
practical data at ETSI described at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1912198 Assessing IPR
Disclosure Within Standard Setting: An ICT Case Study November 2011 Anne
Layne-Farrar
Russ, w/r to
On 11/6/2012 1:47 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi Russ,
On 11.6.2012 14:01 , Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
*'Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant'*
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis, refers to the benefits of openness
let's be simple here. 'late' would seem to be any time after there was
a reasonable expectation that you knew there was a document on which
there was ipr.
randy
It is not so simple. BTW, this is not legal opinion, rather experience
The phrase reasonable expectation is fraught with difficulty both about
whether a contribute knew about IP or did not know or should reasonably have
known and whether he/she believed any such IP would be reasonably
[ my last post on this ]
But my objective in the question what might be late was whether IETF
may have defined late somewhere
we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*. discussion of how
far the submarine should be allowed to run before it surfaces are the
primrose path. as
Hello,
I've read your I-D (extremely interesting) and have a few comments:
1- The attacker model of the 20sec and kill-switch scenarios
We assume the adversary cannot compromise smartphones or other
participating devices.
It looks rather strange to me. Personally I'd rather state the opposite:
The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and
comment.
Russ
=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
Note Well
This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
BCP 79; please
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6775
Title: Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks
(6LoWPANs)
Author: Z. Shelby, Ed.,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6783
Title: Mailing Lists and Non-ASCII Addresses
Author: J. Levine, R. Gellens
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
Date: November 2012
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6777
Title: Label Switched Path (LSP) Data
Path Delay Metrics in Generalized MPLS
and MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Networks
Author:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6759
Title: Cisco Systems Export of Application
Information in IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX)
Author: B. Claise, P. Aitken,
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6784
Title: Kerberos Options for DHCPv6
Author: S. Sakane, M. Ishiyama
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: November 2012
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6726
Title: FLUTE - File Delivery over
Unidirectional Transport
Author: T. Paila, R. Walsh,
M. Luby, V. Roca,
R.
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6774
Title: Distribution of Diverse BGP Paths
Author: R. Raszuk, Ed.,
R. Fernando, K. Patel,
D. McPherson, K. Kumaki
Status:
53 matches
Mail list logo
