IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org writes:
What does a contributor do in the situation when then want to build on an
older work that was contributed prior to RFC 5378?
In short, the contributor must obtain the additional rights from the
original contributor.
Doesn't that make it possible for
IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org writes:
SAM'S QUESTION
What does a contributor do in the situation when then want to build on an
older work that was contributed prior to RFC 5378?
In short, the contributor must obtain the additional rights from the
original contributor.
To my knowledge, there
--On Thursday, 11 December, 2008 16:36 -0800 Douglas Otis
do...@mail-abuse.org wrote:
On Dec 11, 2008, at 1:51 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
As soon as one starts talking about a registry of
legitimate sources, one opens up the question of how
...
Perhaps I should not have used the word
On Dec 12, 2008, at 5:49 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org writes:
SAM'S QUESTION
What does a contributor do in the situation when then want to build
on an
older work that was contributed prior to RFC 5378?
In short, the contributor must obtain the additional rights
Marshall Eubanks t...@multicasttech.com writes:
While this has been argued to death
I disagree. The issue was raised only few weeks ago, and this e-mail
thread is (as far as I have seen) the first where the problem has bee
re-stated in an e-mail to any public IETF list.
Contributors of IETF
Let's do keep in mind that the license permission for reuse in
IETF work has existed explicitly since RFC 2026 (1996) and
implicitly for a long time before that. So, again for IETF
work, the notion of having to either contact a lot of people to
get permission or to completely rewrite is just not
Dear John;
On Dec 12, 2008, at 10:10 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Let's do keep in mind that the license permission for reuse in
IETF work has existed explicitly since RFC 2026 (1996) and
implicitly for a long time before that. So, again for IETF
work, the notion of having to either contact a
Let us be quite clear. The question of rights in pre-existing material
is not a new question. It is inherent in any effort to increase the
rights granted to the trust. While I can not assert what members of the
WG or the community at last call understood, there is actually text in
RFC 5377
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
Let's do keep in mind that the license permission for reuse in
IETF work has existed explicitly since RFC 2026 (1996) and
implicitly for a long time before that. So, again for IETF
work, the notion of having to either contact a lot of people to
get
At Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:15:23 +0100,
Julian Reschke wrote:
I think it would be good to finally enforce the rules for agenda
submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a meeting is published in
time, the meeting shouldn't take place.
+1.
I find it incredibly frustrating to be a week out from
Eric Rescorla allegedly wrote, On 12/12/08 2:26 PM:
At Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:15:23 +0100,
Julian Reschke wrote:
I think it would be good to finally enforce the rules for agenda
submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a meeting is published in
time, the meeting shouldn't take place.
+1.
On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
Let's do keep in mind that the license permission for reuse in
IETF work has existed explicitly since RFC 2026 (1996) and
implicitly for a long time before that. So, again for IETF
work, the notion
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
... the Trustees now believe that it is reasonable
to [re] impose a deadline that gives the community two working
days (it is already well into December 12 in much of the world)
to modify and update tools to incorporate
At Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:12:11 -0500,
Scott Brim wrote:
Eric Rescorla allegedly wrote, On 12/12/08 2:26 PM:
At Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:15:23 +0100,
Julian Reschke wrote:
I think it would be good to finally enforce the rules for agenda
submissions. For instance, if no agenda for a meeting is
At 01:28 PM 12/12/2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I understand, I can no longer take RFC 4398, fix some
minor problem, and re-submit it as a RFC 4398bis. Even though I was
editor of RFC 4398. The reason is that some material in that document
was written by others. At least, I cannot
Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes:
At 01:28 PM 12/12/2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I understand, I can no longer take RFC 4398, fix some
minor problem, and re-submit it as a RFC 4398bis. Even though I was
editor of RFC 4398. The reason is that some material in that document
I hereby extend the rights in my contributions that I have personally
granted in the past to the IETF and to the IETF Trust to include
the additional rights required by RFC5378. Obviously by doing so,
I cannot extend the rights granted by my various employers.
I'm going to print the updated
On 2008-12-12 12:40, John C Klensin wrote:
...
So, given that, the Trustees now believe that it is reasonable
to [re] impose a deadline that gives the community two working
days (it is already well into December 12 in much of the world)
to modify and update tools to incorporate the new
... the Trustees now believe that it is reasonable
to [re] impose a deadline that gives the community two working
days (it is already well into December 12 in much of the world)
to modify and update tools to incorporate the new boilerplate.
They gave one working day of notice that they
Marshall:
My understanding (and IANAL and Jorge is welcome to correct me) is
that the IETF
does indeed have sufficient rights to allow re-use of IETF
documents within the IETF, and
that this is purely concerned with the power of granting
modification rights to other parties.
This is not a
At 8:56 AM +1300 12/13/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm disappointed at how few people have signed up.
+1. The Trust even had cookies in the room when I signed my old form. New form
is on the way to them.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
___
On 2008-12-13 08:20, Russ Housley wrote:
At 01:28 PM 12/12/2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I understand, I can no longer take RFC 4398, fix some
minor problem, and re-submit it as a RFC 4398bis. Even though I was
editor of RFC 4398. The reason is that some material in that document
I'm disappointed at how few people have signed up. Even people who've
been active in this debate haven't signed up to the old version.
I signed the old form (on paper) and handed it in a while
back but do not see my name on the list -- did a bit get
dropped somewhere?
Scott
A form is being developed to assist in this task. There is no
requirement that the form be used, but it will be available
shortly for anyone that chooses to make use of it.
This form is now available. The Contributor non-exclusive
license form has been updated to grant all of the rights
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes:
On 2008-12-13 08:20, Russ Housley wrote:
At 01:28 PM 12/12/2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I understand, I can no longer take RFC 4398, fix some
minor problem, and re-submit it as a RFC 4398bis. Even though I was
editor of RFC
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers '
draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley.
A URL of this
A form is being developed to assist in this task. There is no
requirement that the form be used, but it will be available
shortly for anyone that chooses to make use of it.
This form is now available. The Contributor non-exclusive
license form has been updated to grant all of the rights
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5393
Title: Addressing an Amplification Vulnerability in
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Forking Proxies
Author: R. Sparks, Ed., S. Lawrence,
28 matches
Mail list logo
