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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Correction:  RFC 5378 was published on 10 November 2008.
http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/2008-November/002142.html

Russ

At 11:20 AM 1/14/2009, Russ Housley wrote:
>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