IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Tue, 13 January 2009 01:24 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 709C13A692C; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:24:33 -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 7AD163A67DB; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:24:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.711, 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 DNcj2ZkQe6jL; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F2A3A67AD; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:24:31 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=nlq7bGuRnbnqYqfm2qDFFJtUMfnl45PNTOHEj3II9gmmll8S9ub0oUeZpqRLAmB4; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MIMEOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [68.166.189.64] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1LMY0u-0007if-Uf; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:24:17 -0500
Message-ID: <001d01c9751e$131ff560$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: trustees@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
References: <70873A2B7F744826B0507D4B84903E60@noisy><54974382E5FF41D3A40EFDF758DB8C49@DGBP7M81> <20090112211809.515993A67EA@core3.amsl.com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review andcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:27:16 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d8886924630f8852f173eb91dda37442138a5e177e21b891fa2c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.166.189.64
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

Hi -

> From: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
> Cc: <trustees@ietf.org>; <ietf@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 1:07 PM
> Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review andcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
>
> 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.

When updates have been wordsmithed by the WG, is it true that
only a person whose exact N words (where N >= X) were used
needs to sign off on it, and we don't need to track down every
single variation suggested during the wordsmithing?  Can
we have a guideline for WG chairs on a value for X?

> 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.
...

In the particular case Doug mentions, there are *no* authors, only
editors working under the direction of a WG.  Does this still apply?
Wouldn't it make more sense for the WG to grant the additional rights,
since it is the WG which authored the work.

Randy

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email