Subject: [Ecrit] FW: RFC 5378 Implications

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:08:20 +0200

FYI 

Two shorter writeups from Bernard Aboba and Paul Hoffman. 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
>Sent: 14 January, 2009 21:50
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: RFC 5378 Implications
>
>As some of you may know, as a result of the publication of RFC 
>5378, the IETF
>has changed the boilerplate required for Internet-Draft submissions.   
>
>It is important that all contributors know the terms under 
>which contributions are made, and to understand the 
>requirements imposed by RFC 5378, as well as the problems that 
>some people have had with it. 
>
>Currently, a discussion is underway on the IETF Discuss 
>mailing list relating to the implications of RFC 5378, as well 
>as potential fixes to it.  
>
>If you are a contributor or potential contributor within the 
>RADEXT WG,  and are interested in understanding your 
>obligations and responsibilities under the new policies, 
>please consult the IETF Discussion archive:
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/maillist.html
>
>Discussion of this topic on individual Working Group mailing 
>lists is discouraged. 
>
>Some recent postings on the IETF Discussion list:
>IETF Trustee Request for Review:
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg54839.html
>IAD statement:
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg54691.html
>IETF Chair statement:
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg54502.html
>
>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
>Sent: 14 January, 2009 23:25
>To: IPsecme WG
>Subject: [IPsec] RFC 5378 and this WG
>
>Greetings again. If you are an author or contributor on in 
>this WG, please read 
><http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg54839.htm
>l>. It is important.
>
>The WG Chairs have been asked to make their WGs aware of this 
>issue. This is a complicated subject, but the executive 
>summary is that if you have an Internet-Draft that quotes 
>substantially from one or more older RFCs (ones with a 
>publication date pre-November 11, 2008), and you did not write 
>this earlier work yourself (or you wrote it while with another 
>company), you need to be aware of the likely difficulty of 
>obtaining RFC 5378 clearances for your new work, and also to 
>be aware that a work-around is on the way. The work-around 
>should be in place to allow submissions to the San Francisco 
>IETF well before the normal deadlines. See the attached text 
>for more details.
>
>There is an open question about whether or not an Internet 
>Draft that quotes from the WG discussion also needs clearance 
>from the person who proposed text in the discussion. For 
>example, IKEv2bis has a lot of material that has been proposed 
>on this mailing list.
>
>If you feel that you have a draft for which this will be a 
>problem, please contact me.
>
>With a chair hat on, I am not going to allow a general 
>discussion about RFC 5378 on this list (as it is very 
>off-topic). Please take such comments to the main IETF 
>discussion list. Questions about specific WG drafts are of 
>course on topic.
>
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>--VPN Consortium
>_______________________________________________
>IPsec mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit