Re: RFC5378 alternate procedure (was: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary)

Material comments:

- Section 3: RFC 5378 expected the date on which 5378 was effective to 
be set by the Trust (section 2.1), and explicitly did not want to cast 
into RFC stone the procedure by which the changeover date was determined.

- I disagree with the decision to allow *all* of a submission, including 
new text, to be 3978-boilerplated. As I've said before, my preferred 
resolution mechanism is to have a mechanism available (probably 
front-page disclaimer + details in the Contributors section) for listing 
pre-5378 sources from which material was copied without 5378 permission 
being granted by the authors.
I believe the continued production of material that is licensed under 
3978 only will be long-term harmful to the state of the IETF's IPR 
confusion.

                          Harald

John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've just reposted this draft as
> draft-klensin-rfc5378var-01.txt.  I didn't removing the material
> I indicated I was going to remove because this version follows
> too quickly on the previous one.
>
> There are only two sets of changes, but the first seemed
> sufficiently important to be worth a quick update:
>
> (1) Alfred Hoenes caught several places in which I had
> transposed digits or otherwise fouled up RFC numbers to which I
> was making reference.  This type of work is sufficiently
> confusing without that sort of stupid problem, for which I
> apologize -- I thought I had proofread it carefully enough but
> obviously did not.  They have been fixed.
>
> (2) I realized that it was necessary for completeness to
> un-obsolete 3948 and 4748 if they were going to be referenced,
> or material from them picked up and copied into, documents, so I
> have inserted a paragraph to take care of that.
>
> Anyone who has successful read the -00 version and understood it
> can safely ignore this one.  Anyone who has not yet read -00, or
> who tried to read it and was confused by the numbering errors,
> may find this version more helpful.
>
> Comments are, of course, welcome on either one.
>
>      john
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf