Re: [IAB] [xml2rfc] [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to the Pre-5378 Problem

[John C Klensin <john+xml at jck.com>]

Ray and Trustees,

Please note that this is exactly the sort of issue that I
believed we had a commitment to have sorted out and in the hands
of the tool maintainers by the 15th (or earlier).  It doesn't
depend on the specific text to by used, so could, and IMO
should, have been worked through in parallel with, or in advance
of, any considerations of text.

While getting things working is more important in the short term
than understanding what happened here, I believe that the fact
that fairly explicit commitments were made and then the ball was
dropped is something that should be visible to the community and
that calls for a review of the IASA's way of doing business.

    john

--On Monday, February 23, 2009 11:16 -0800 Bill Fenner
<fenner at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Ray Pelletier
> <rpelletier at isoc.org> wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> - where should the escape clause appear in an I-D (in
>>> "Status of this Memo", or in "Copyright Notice")?
>> Copyright Notice
> 
> I believe this change from historic practice (moving
> ipr-related statements from "Status of this Memo" to
> "Copyright Notice") will require a new spin of the xml2rfc
> changes that I completed over the weekend.  Is this really a
> good change to make right now?
> 
>   Bill