Re: RFC5378 alternate procedure (was: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary)

[Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>]

Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com> writes:

> I believe it would allow us to continue work where the text had been  
> provided under the 3978 rules. Without something like this, I don't  
> know how I can submit new versions of  the WG internet drafts that I  
> am an co-author of. I can not even figure out who are all the people  
> that contributed significant text to the WG drafts much less imagine  
> how I will get permission from all of them to submit the draft under  
> the the 5378 rules.

Question. It is my understanding/assumption that the ONLY parties that
one must clearance from are the actual listed authors of the
document. Specifically, one does NOT need to go back to everyone who
might have contributed text. That, at least, is how we seem to have
been operating for a long time, i.e, it is only the listed authors
that matter.
 
Having said that, things might be murkier than that if one looks at an
acknowledgment section to find everyone who might have contributed
"significant" text.

I.e., when incorporating comments from individuals in WGs, those
contributions are covered by the NOTE WELL. Does the NOTE WELL also
need to be extended to cover the expanded rights case?  Please say no!

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