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

["Tom.Petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Fenner" <[e-mail]>
To: "Tom.Petch" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Russ Housley" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review andcomments on a
proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem


> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Tom.Petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> This is not quite accurate.  RFC 5378 became BCP 78 at the time of
> publication on November 11th; even the old text says
> "      This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
>       contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
>       retain all their rights."
>
> So if you published an I-D with those words in it after RFC 5378 was
> published as BCP 78, then that I-D is subject to the rights, licenses
> and restrictions contained in RFC 5378.

Thanks for the correction.  I also had in mind contributions to mailing lists
where the Note Well - eg the one sent out to this list on 1 January 2009 -
references RFC5378 (or not as is the case in other settings) rather than  BCP78.
I am unclear whether this is by design or whether it is something that has yet
to be brought in line with current thinking.

Isn't it complicated?

Tom Petch

>
>   Bill

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