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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Tom:

RFC 5378 was published on 11 November 2008, and it went into effect 
on that date.  Pre-5378 material refers to contributions that were 
made before the BCP went into effect.  I do not believe that anyone 
tracked the posting time at a finer granularity than a day.

Russ

The At 04:41 AM 1/14/2009, Tom.Petch wrote:
>Russ
>
>I would like greater clarity about the meaning of pre-5378.
>
>Ed's original announcement said that the new regime was in effect from 12
>November 2008 (no time specified).
>
>Ed's revised text uses 'before 10 November 2008' (no time specified).
>
>Ed's original announcement also placed significance on 0100 UTC on 
>16th December
>appearing to allow a grace period up until then during which 5378 was not in
>effect, since old boiler plate was acceptable.
>
>We appear to have four zones of time (up to 23:59:59 9th Nov, 10th/11th Nov,
>12th Nov sometime to 00:00:59 UTC 16th December, thereafter).
>
>Please define, in a legally binding manner, pre- and post- 5378.
>
>After which, we may need transitional arrangements for people who 
>posted in the
>middle two time zones, particularly for those who published in the first two
>weeks of December, thinking that they had a waiver and now find that they may
>have claimed rights in their Contribution that they will never 
>possess (because
>it contains old text from earlier Contributions).
>
>(We may even have a fifth time zone, up until the time at which people were
>informed of the new regime - at least up until the turn of the year, 
>not all our
>emissions yet carried the new text referring to RFC5378 so anyone new to the
>IETF could reasonably claim that their Contributions were being made under
>RFC3978 as modified - but I digress :-(.
>
>Tom Petch
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Russ Housley" <[e-mail]>
>To: "Doug Ewell" <[e-mail]>
>Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:07 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.
> >
> > 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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf