Hi -
Thanks for the clarification. Does this mean that if a WG
really has no concern that the documents it's working on would be
spun off to another organization, then it doesn't need to
worry about tracking down "contributors"?
Randy
> From: "Contreras, Jorge"
> To: ;
> Sent: Wednesday, Janu
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:33:35PM -0500, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
> No, absolutely not. Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF standards
> process has never been an issue, only use outside the IETF is problematic
> (ie, allowed under 5378 but not the earlier rules).
Why is the actual situation o
On Wednesday 14 January 2009 04:32:09 Raman Chan sent:
> HIP?
In HIP the Host Identity is a public key. I suggest that node identity be
network connectivity cognition, i.e., an identity address shall be an
acquaintance path to a node. Acquaintant are two nodes that know each other's
unicast add
Title: Re: RFC 5378 "contributions"
No, absolutely not. Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF standards process has never been an issue, only use outside the IETF is problematic (ie, allowed under 5378 but not the earlier rules).
- Original Message -
From: ietf-boun...@ie
On 2009-01-14 at 08:18 -0800, The IESG wrote:
> Since the third Last Call, RedPhone Security filed IETF IPR disclosure
> 1026. This disclosure statement asserts in part that "the techniques
> for sending and receiving authorizations defined in TLS Authorizations
> Extensions (version draft-housley
At 1:38 PM +1300 1/15/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>On 2009-01-15 13:32, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>> Hi -
>>
>> I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
>> was asked to ask again here...
>>
>> The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
>> understand of it, anyway)
On Jan 14, 2009, at 7:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-01-15 13:32, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
was asked to ask again here...
The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
understand of it, anyway) has focussed
On 2009-01-15 13:32, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
> I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
> was asked to ask again here...
>
> The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
> understand of it, anyway) has focussed on I-Ds and RFCs.
> However, the definition
Hi -
I originally asked this question on the WG chairs' list, and
was asked to ask again here...
The discussion about RFC 5378 (what little I've been able to
understand of it, anyway) has focussed on I-Ds and RFCs.
However, the definition of "contribution" in that document
includes, among other t
> "Dean" == Dean Anderson writes:
Dean> 3. --There have been reports of similar issues in recent
Dean> lawsuit where the plaintiff patent-holder acted similarly to
Dean> Housley/Brown/Polk et al and was found to have engaged in
Dean> "aggravated litigation abuse". In that case
Dean and the IESG:
I will respond to some, but not all of Dean's points.
3. --There have been reports of similar issues in recent lawsuit where
the plaintiff patent-holder acted similarly to Housley/Brown/Polk et al
and was found to have engaged in "aggravated litigation abuse". In that
case, t
On Jan 14, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
Somehow I haven't yet recieved the fourth last call, but only the
discussion Sigh.
see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/
msg05617.html
There are MANY reasons that this should not be brought to a FOURTH
last
c
Correction: RFC 5378 was published on 10 November 2008.
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/2008-November/002142.html
Russ
At 11:20 AM 1/14/2009, Russ Housley wrote:
Tom:
RFC 5378 was published on 11 November 2008, and it went into effect
on that date. Pre-5378 material refers
Like Stephen said, we have even more urgent problems if the attendance
goes way down. Lets focus our immediate energy on that front. I'm sure
the IAOC and Russ have already spent quite a bit of time on that...
Also, if this becomes a serious nomcom issue, I suspect the biggest hit
would be take
On Jan 13, 2009, at 9:02 AM, SM wrote:
Hi Doug,
At 18:53 12-01-2009, Doug Otis wrote:
(see section 3.4.1 of [MAIL]) of an address, the "pvalue" reported
along with results for these mechanisms SHOULD NOT include the
local- part.
"SHOULD NOT" is not an recommendation to do something.
Som
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Tom.Petch wrote:
> Ed's original announcement also placed significance on 0100 UTC on 16th
> December
> appearing to allow a grace period up until then during which 5378 was not in
> effect, since old boiler plate was acceptable.
This is not quite accurate. RFC
Sam Hartman wrote:
I think a standard in this space is really needed. I would definitely
like to be able to include SAML assertions and other statements of
authorization as part of a TLS exchange.
In the appropriate environments I'd be willing to implement this spec
given the current IPR situat
FYI - I've submitted the following comments last week sometime, but I
think they may be held up in the moderator queue:
I'm in the process updating reTurn (opensource Turn server in
resiprocate project) to the latest turn-12, and have the following
comments/typos after reviewing the draft.
1. se
I think a standard in this space is really needed. Given the revised
IPR statement, I think it is clear that it can be implemented widely.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Tom:
RFC 5378 was published on 11 November 2008, and it went into effect
on that date. Pre-5378 material refers to contributions that were
made before the BCP went into effect. I do not believe that anyone
tracked the posting time at a finer granularity than a day.
Russ
The At 04:41 AM 1/
I think a standard in this space is really needed. I would definitely
like to be able to include SAML assertions and other statements of
authorization as part of a TLS exchange.
In the appropriate environments I'd be willing to implement this spec
given the current IPR situation.
__
Russ
I would like greater clarity about the meaning of pre-5378.
Ed's original announcement said that the new regime was in effect from 12
November 2008 (no time specified).
Ed's revised text uses 'before 10 November 2008' (no time specified).
Ed's original announcement also placed significance
22 matches
Mail list logo
