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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 12 January 2009 21:18 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 0B1A53A687F; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:18:11 -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 408773A687F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:18:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 cX8Iew9P7Hta for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from woodstock.binhost.com (woodstock.binhost.com [8.8.40.152]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 515993A67EA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 16635 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jan 2009 21:17:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com) (96.255.143.189) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 12 Jan 2009 21:17:48 -0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:07:45 -0500
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
In-Reply-To: <54974382E5FF41D3A40EFDF758DB8C49@DGBP7M81>
References: <70873A2B7F744826B0507D4B84903E60@noisy> <54974382E5FF41D3A40EFDF758DB8C49@DGBP7M81>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20090112211809.515993A67EA@core3.amsl.com>
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Doug:

I hope this response answers your pragmatic questions.

>1.  What do I, as editor of an I-D and previously editor of a 
>related RFC that is not quoted in the current I-D, need to do in 
>order to allow the WG chairs to move my draft forward into IETF Last Call?

You can proceed to IETF Last Call now.  However, if updates to the 
I-D are needed you may be faced with a problem depending on your 
situation.  I presume that some or all of the text in the I-D was 
contributed before 10 Nov 2008.  If so, then an update to that I-D 
requires you or the WG chair to determine if the people that made the 
contribution are willing to grant the additional rights required by 
RFC 5378.  If so, you are done.  If not, you will need some 
work-around like the one being discussed on this thread.

If IETF Last Call or IESG Evaluation brings comments that require an 
update to the I-D, then you end up with the same situation.

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.

>  2.  What do the co-editors of the WG's other I-D, who were 
> previously also the co-editors of a related RFC that *is* quoted in 
> the current I-D, and at least one of whom has co-authored other 
> RFCs, need to do to allow the WG chairs to move *their* draft 
> forward into IETF Last Call? Our WG has stalled due to the 
> uncertainty surrounding the legal requirements and verbiage.  None 
> of us are attorneys, AFAIK, but all of us would like to get our work done.

You can proceed to IETF Last Call now.  As above, at some point 
contributors will be asked to grant the additional rights required by 
RFC 5378.  If you can do so, there is no problem.  If not, you will 
need some work-around like the one being discussed on this thread.

Russ 

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