At 15:44 09-01-2009, Douglas Otis wrote:
It states that only _authenticated_ information should be included
within the Authentication-Results header for either Sender-ID or
SPF. At the same time, the draft defines Sender-ID and SPF as being
an authorization method and _not_ the authentication
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:16:43PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
That's why I challenged Ted Hardie directly. Please don't take it personally
or as flaming, but anyone who wants to assert a private ownership right in
any copyright in any IETF RFC ought to do so now or forever hold your peace.
Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com writes:
My own take has been that the code reuse problem is the dominant
problem.
My interpretation has been that the problem has been (and remain) that
the license on IETF documents is incompatible with free software
licensing, which is counter-productive
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 02:37:50PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
We do have precedent for include code that has explicit open source
licensing rights. For example, the MD5 implementation in RFC 1321 has
an explicit BSD-style license.
Sure, but under the post-RFC 2026 rules that would not
Bill Manning wrote:
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of
Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works
is not granted.
- and -
So for some IETF work product, there are/were people who assert a
private ownership right in the
+1
It seems to me that we are spending a great deal of energy on
non-problems (including the one Ted discusses below) and too
little time on real issues... like how to encourage people to do
real work around here (where requiring authors try to figure out
who might have contributed parts of a
Ted,
On 2009-01-11 08:10, Theodore Tso wrote:
...
If the
goal is to allow code to be allowed in Open Source Software, then
requiring a maximally compatible OSS license for code makes sense.
But requiring for random protocol text, especially if this is going to
make reuse of older RFC's
Joel,
Yes. I'll accept any solution in the range covered by my draft and your
and John's messages.
Brian
On 2009-01-10 12:52, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
My own take has been that the code reuse problem is the dominant
problem. Document transfer outside the IETF is sufficiently rare that I
--On Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:17 -0800 Lawrence Rosen
lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
...
For the lawyers on here, I'm hoping that silence now,
particularly by the major IETF contributors on this list, will
be interpreted as laches or waiver if one of them later claims
an exclusive
+1.
Which is why I suggest that we should support the Trustees' proposed
short term fix, to allow normal work to continue +/- cutting and pasting
some boilerplate. We do have a glitch in 5378 to mend, but let's get that
off the critical path.
Brian
On 2009-01-11 09:12, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:31 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
+1.
Which is why I suggest that we should support the Trustees'
proposed short term fix, to allow normal work to continue +/-
cutting and pasting some boilerplate. We do have a glitch in
5378 to
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Which is why I suggest that we should support the Trustees' proposed
short term fix, to allow normal work to continue +/- cutting and pasting
some boilerplate. We do have a glitch in 5378 to mend, but let's get that
off the critical path.
I can't begin to guess at
--On Saturday, January 10, 2009 12:52 -0800 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
...
I can't begin to guess at the logic that uses Larry's somewhat
bizarre assertion as a basis for trying to press approval of
this clearly and substantially problematic proposal.
To create a paraphrase,
On 2009-01-11 09:52, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Which is why I suggest that we should support the Trustees' proposed
short term fix, to allow normal work to continue +/- cutting and pasting
some boilerplate. We do have a glitch in 5378 to mend, but let's get that
off the
--On Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:31 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
+1.
Which is why I suggest that we should support the Trustees'
proposed short term fix, to allow normal work to continue +/-
cutting and pasting some boilerplate. We do have a glitch in
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Er, is that a Last Call comment on draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights
and draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming? A bit late, if so.
Brian, too late makes sense for stray comments.
It doesn't make sense when we discover that a spec doesn't work. There have been
quite a few
On 2009-01-11 10:55, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Er, is that a Last Call comment on draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights
and draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming? A bit late, if so.
Brian, too late makes sense for stray comments.
It doesn't make sense when we discover that a spec
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:17:47AM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of
Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works
is not granted.
- and -
So for some IETF work product,
FWIW, I am serving pro bono in the public interest, and I hope everyone else
here would also. /Larry
--Original Message--
From: John C Klensin
Sender:
To: Lawrence Rosen
To: 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees inviteyour reviewand
comments on a
Hi -
From: Bill Manning bmann...@isi.edu
To: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com
Cc: 'IETF Discussion' ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your
reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378
--On Saturday, January 10, 2009 22:48 + lro...@rosenlaw.com
wrote:
FWIW, I am serving pro bono in the public interest, and I hope
everyone else here would also. /Larry
And you have no clients, even clients for whom you are working
pro bono, who have a vested position in the outcome of
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 04:28:31PM -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: Bill Manning bmann...@isi.edu
To: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com
Cc: 'IETF Discussion' ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite
22 matches
Mail list logo
