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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sat, 18 July 2009 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
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 2FAC83A6B9B; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.053, 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 Dsk53a+GyVKp; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4DF3A6B90; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCF8F24038; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:09:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YOVK5NEpK-rm; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:08:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com (pool-96-241-154-102.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.154.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15229F24010; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:09:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:08:46 -0400
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [IAB] [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
In-Reply-To: <4A625179.3040207@gmail.com>
References: <20090718222804.AAE5B1AA71F1@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4A625179.3040207@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <20090718230916.15229F24010@odin.smetech.net>
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 23:27:25 -0000

The proposed change to the boilerplate has not drawn a single 
negative comment, and there are a few documents in the RFC Editor 
queue that are waiting for this change.  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.

Russ

At 06:49 PM 7/18/2009, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am baffled why this announcement, of fundamental importance,
>was not sent to the correct list for IETF announcements.
>
>The same applies to the original announcement, sent as I
>understand it on 23 June, at a time when I wasn't reading
>the discussion list for personal reasons.
>
>I will comment substantively when I've had a chance to
>read through the proposal and John's appeal. However, I
>would suggest that the announcement should be sent
>to the IETF announcement list, and that the one month
>comment period should start again at that point.
>
>    Brian