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

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:31 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1.
> 
> Which is why I suggest that we should support the Trustees'
> proposed short term fix, to allow normal work to continue +/-
> cutting and pasting some boilerplate. We do have a glitch in
> 5378 to mend, but let's get that off the critical path.

To repeat myself, I will support that fix the moment the
Trustees' come forward and say, explicitly, "this is the problem
we are trying to solve, this is the principle we are using as
the basis of the solution, and, with the advice of Counsel, we
believe that this fix represents a competent, best-efforts,
legal-text representation of that principle and nothing else".

I am not going to engage in trying to evaluate any more legal
documents in a way that involves making inferences about their
possible effects, direct or indirect, or about whether the text
is necessary and sufficient to the solution of a particular
problem or the implementation of a particular principle.

I also continue to be troubled by the fact that, in December,
more than one of the Trustees made public statements to the
effect thatFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Sat Jan 10 12:47:20 2009
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6344C3A68DA;
	Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:47:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABBE3A68DA
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:47:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.015
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.015 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.656, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id AwOYXYLt9xmE for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:47:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A413A6768
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:47:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost)
	by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1LLkjQ-00014t-I9; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:46:56 -0500
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:46:47 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite
	your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the
	Pre-5378 Problem
Message-ID: <345C76B329D94E644F9DF70C at PST.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <496905AF.7090209 at gmail.com>
References: <FB8A848E-E415-4CDE-9E3F-5C74A5614F18 at cisco.com>
	<49678B2A.8000100 at dcrocker.net> <20090109181503.GP24908 at verdi>
	<6E372F257B0C42E7AB9B7DA6231FF4E4 at LROSENTOSHIBA>
	<p06240800c58d5466241b at [10.227.48.131]>
	<DBAA71AA401E5398212B1E03 at PST.jck.com> <4967CAA1.9020608 at gmail.com>
	<B2385D8E5F5BA599A174BD43 at PST.jck.com>
	<4967E348.7050300 at joelhalpern.com>
	<87d4evgu35.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org>
	<20090110191055.GB31579 at mit.edu>
	<7D0E9557A84E06BFB4E120CA at PST.jck.com> <496905AF.7090209 at gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>, Theodore Tso <tytso at mit.edu>,
	'IETF Discussion' <ietf at ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org



--On Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:31 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1.
> 
> Which is why I suggest that we should support the Trustees'
> proposed short term fix, to allow normal work to continue +/-
> cutting and pasting some boilerplate. We do have a glitch in
> 5378 to mend, but let's get that off the critical path.

To repeat myself, I will support that fix the moment the
Trustees' come forward and say, explicitly, "this is the problem
we are trying to solve, this is the principle we are using as
the basis of the solution, and, with the advice of Counsel, we
believe that this fix represents a competent, best-efforts,
legal-text representation of that principle and nothing else".

I am not going to engage in trying to evaluate any more legal
documents in a way that involves making inferences about their
possible effects, direct or indirect, or about whether the text
is necessary and sufficient to the solution of a particular
problem or the implementation of a particular principle.

I also continue to be troubled by the fact that, in December,
more than one of the Trustees made public statements to the
effect that 5378 wa 5378 was in effect and that the Trustees could do
absolutely nothing about it, including this sort of fix, without
a new IETF consensus document that updated or replaed 5378.
Either we need to hear from the Trustees, with the support of
Counsel, that the interpretation offered in December was
incorrect and has been withdrawn, or anyone who submits a
document that incorporates the short term fix language risks
being told --by one or more Trustees or others-- that the
disclaimer does not count and that, but submitting the document,
they are still making the warrantees that have been the subject
of this discussion.

   john

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


s in effect and that the Trustees could do
absolutely nothing about it, including this sort of fix, without
a new IETF consensus document that updated or replaed 5378.
Either we need to hear from the Trustees, with the support of
Counsel, that the interpretation offered in December was
incorrect and has been withdrawn, or anyone who submits a
document that incorporates the short term fix language risks
being told --by one or more Trustees or others-- that the
disclaimer does not count and that, but submitting the document,
they are still making the warrantees that have been the subject
of this discussion.

   john

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