Joe Touch wrote:
There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired document
will not be available *in the archive*.
There's nothing that says it won't be available by Santa Claus delivery
either. However, the document states how things will be made available,
and how that
On 9/12/2012 11:01 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
While the 6-month timer (or any earlier I-D update!!) will, in fact,
change how the*IETF* distributes and promotes a particular I-D (version),
there is actually*NO* limitation in what folks downloading I-Ds
with the URLs from the i-d-announce I-D
--On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 23:13 -0400 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
...
There's nothing in the quote above that says that the expired
document will not be available *in the archive*. It says that
it will be removed *from the repository*, which it is... and
the text
On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires
that _keep_ imply guarantee to have available for retrieval
over the network by any interested party, with no requirement
for a special request.
It's interesting how this line of
By my count that would put about 5 months between IETF 94 and 95, and
just a bit more than 3 months separating 95 from 96. Leave it the way
it was.
On 09/12/2012 08:02 AM, kuor-hsin.ch...@us.elster.com wrote:
3 - 8 April 2016is good.
- Forwarded by Kuor-Hsin Chang/USE/Elster on
On 9/13/2012 12:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires
that _keep_ imply guarantee to have available for retrieval
over the network by any interested party, with no requirement
for a special
When I read the original IESG statement, I thought it sloppily worded,
since it did not use the same terminology as in
http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/1id-guidelines.txt
which has been cited below.
I then wondered if the sloppy, as I saw it, wording might reflect less
than precise thinking in the
--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 00:19 -0700 Joe Touch
to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 9/13/2012 12:02 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/12/2012 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
But nothing in the above, nor in the text you cite, requires
that _keep_ imply guarantee to have available for retrieval
All,
I noticed that the recent RFC 6716 contains some reference code that
contain the copyright and licenses notice reproduced below. The IETF
TLP [1] mandates a certain form of copyright notices and the TLP does
not, as far as I can see, permit varying the boiler plate in any way.
Note that
Joe == Joe Touch to...@isi.edu writes:
Joe On 9/5/2012 7:51 AM, SM wrote:
Joe ...
Creating a perpetual I-D archive for the sake of rfcdiff is not a
good idea as it goes against the notion of letting an I-D expire
gracefully.
Joe +1
Joe Let's not forget there was
I find the archives very useful, especially when you have your own I-D
history and contribution to WG works perhaps. It helps to show
different views, the synergism, the competitive engineering views, the
history, etc behind the final development of WG work.
Whenever I do find a need to
On 9/12/12 11:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public
access, honoring pragmatics.
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
Melinda
PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public
access, honoring pragmatics.
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
And since we've had a public archive of expired drafts for
Joe,
So it's not a slam dunk that you have the rights you think for every
I-D; you definitely don't have those rights for IDs
We're NOT talking about rights that were transfered from the document
author to arbitrary third parties here, but about rights that were
given to the IETF (IETF
I was only peripherally involved in this and don't know all the in's and outs
of this but let me try and provide a bit of information and hopefully someone
from the IETF Trust or RFC Editor can correct me where I am wrong.
The internet draft was done with the normal boiler plate that granted
Cullen Jennings (fluffy) flu...@cisco.com writes:
I was only peripherally involved in this and don't know all the in's
and outs of this but let me try and provide a bit of information and
hopefully someone from the IETF Trust or RFC Editor can correct me
where I am wrong.
Thanks. Input from
I like the whole and +1 to it. I can see the pros and cons of make drafts
actually go away but given it is impossible to get rid of a draft from the
internet, all we end up with in the current situation are the cons and none of
the pros.
I do have one suggested change
OLD
An I-D will only
On 9/13/2012 2:35 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
OLD
An I-D will only be removed from the public I-D archive in compliance
with a duly authorized court order.
NEW
The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive.
This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor,
The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive.
This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written policy
guidance. That is, deletion is at the whimsy of the Chair.
Is that really what we (and the Chair) want?
I very much agree. I'm happy with the
On 9/13/2012 3:08 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the public I-D archive.
This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written policy
guidance. That is, deletion is at the whimsy of the Chair.
Is that really what we (and the Chair) want?
I
Dave,
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:10:51PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed
by legal counsel.
I think the lengthy discussion that we have seen on this topic proofs that
we should NOT have a written policy.
Deal with this on a
David,
On 9/13/2012 3:25 PM, David Kessens wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:10:51PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed
by legal counsel.
I think the lengthy discussion that we have seen on this topic proofs that
we should NOT
Dave,
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:43:01PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Essentially none of the enlightened discussion on this thread
considered legal ramifications of potentially arbitrary censorship
by a public group such as ourselves.
Aren't you going a little overboard in hyperbole here ?
On 9/13/2012 3:54 PM, David Kessens wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:43:01PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Essentially none of the enlightened discussion on this thread
considered legal ramifications of potentially arbitrary censorship
by a public group such as ourselves.
Aren't you going a
--On Thursday, September 13, 2012 15:10 -0700 Dave Crocker
dcroc...@bbiw.net wrote:
On 9/13/2012 3:08 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
The IETF Chair may decide to removed an I-D from the
public I-D archive.
This defines the IETF Chair as Chief Censor, with no written
policy guidance. That is,
I very much agree. I'm happy with the decision being the consensus of
a board, but not giving it to an individual.
So give it to the IESG and we can stop arguing about it.
I have to say, the urge to post a few I-D's consisting of snuff porn
is nearly irresistible.
R's,
John
I believe we /do/ need a written policy that has been reviewed by
legal counsel. Even with a group -- versus individual -- we should not
create possible charges of censorship up to the personal whims of the
moment.
Censorship? Sheesh.
The IETF is not the government. We have no
It shows a tendency of the active IETF discussants to resist doing the
work of settling on policy for the IETF. That's quite different from
demonstrating a lack of /need/.
The IETF has been around for 26 years, and has had, I gather, zero
removal requests to date.
If that doesn't demonstrate
On 9/13/2012 12:28 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Joe,
So it's not a slam dunk that you have the rights you think for every
I-D; you definitely don't have those rights for IDs
We're NOT talking about rights that were transfered from the document
author to arbitrary third parties here, but about
On 9/13/2012 11:04 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/12/12 11:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
PirateBay believes this too, and helps make movies available for public
access, honoring pragmatics.
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
Yes. Depends on the IDs, when they were authored, and which version of
the boilerplate they contain.
Can you give a concrete example of an I-D with this problem? I
There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at least.
I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail.
Joe
On 9/13/2012 8:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this analogy. Are you saying that there are
IPR issues related to making expired drafts available?
Total of 150 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 14 00:53:02 EDT 2012
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
12.67% | 19 | 11.73% | 116162 | to...@isi.edu
6.67% | 10 | 6.47% |64122 | jo...@taugh.com
Joe Touch wrote:
There were times when there were no rights granted explicitly, at least.
I indicated the three ranges in a previous mail.
In which case the Note Well concludently applies to the I-D contents,
which seems to have first appeared on www.ietf.org around 2001,
Note well, as you noted well, does not go back to the beginning of all IDs.
I.e., this is a tangled mess of different copyrights, different note
wells, etc., and it's not as simple as it's the IETF's right to do
anything except - maybe - going forward with a new copyright statement
for IDs.
The INSIPID WG will be holding a virtual interim meeting on 4th October
2012 at 9:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time (GMT-4:00). The duration will be 2 hours.
The agenda will be posted to the INSIPID mailing list
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid/current/maillist.html)
pending further
36 matches
Mail list logo
