IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 12 January 2009 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427773A68D0; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:28:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371B33A68D0; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:28:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2hvMjY4K43Zt; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C443A67EA; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:28:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1LMUKI-0007Dk-Nu; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:28:02 -0500
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:28:02 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
Message-ID: <A2460A3CBF9453B10BC02375@PST.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090112211809.515993A67EA@core3.amsl.com>
References: <70873A2B7F744826B0507D4B84903E60@noisy> <54974382E5FF41D3A40EFDF758DB8C49@DGBP7M81> <20090112211809.515993A67EA@core3.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: trustees@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


--On Monday, January 12, 2009 16:07 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

>...
> If the document is approved without change, then the RFC
> Editor will ask each of the authors to grant the additional
> rights required by RFC 5378.  If this cannot be done, then the
> document will sit in the queue until some work-around like the
> one being discussed on this thread is implemented.

Russ, the RFC Editor does not, in general, know about any
Contributors other than listed authors and has never been tasked
with figuring that out.   Does the above imply that the Trustees
have made a determination, with the advice of Counsel, that it
is safe and appropriate to interpret the 5378 rules wrt older
text such that only listed authors are relevant to obtaining
necessary rights?   Has the RFC Editor been advised of that
determination?

I ask only because of my continuing concern that a fix/patch
will be adopted with the best of intentions all around but then
will turn out to not cover enough cases to make it really useful.

     john

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email