IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IAB] [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Sat, 18 July 2009 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
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 24E033A6BE3 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
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 sg8MleJrqmAN for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 630133A69A2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1724 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2009 23:44:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (67.166.27.148) by smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.44) with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2009 23:44:44 -0000
Message-ID: <B8DB9B7664CC42C5A40086CED5055078@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <20090718222804.AAE5B1AA71F1@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu><4A625179.3040207@gmail.com> <20090718230916.15229F24010@odin.smetech.net>
Subject: Re: [IAB] [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:44:41 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Cc: Trustees <trustees@ietf.org>, IAB <iab@iab.org>, IESG <iesg@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-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:54:27 -0000

Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec dot com> wrote:

> My preference would be for the Trust to approve the revised TLP that 
> have not received any negative comments, and thus release the 
> documents in the RFC Editor queue.  Then, the Trust should put forward 
> alternative text for the sections that have received negative 
> comments, starting another review period.

So there will likely be yet another revision of the TLP text?  That 
means the already-overworked volunteer tool developers will have to add 
another option to generate new boilerplate, and I-D authors will endure 
another round of idnits telling them their boilerplate is out of date.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email