[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: WG Last Call - summary of issues



Given the lack of reaction on the list, I'm declaring #1511, #1514, #1516 and #1517 as "resolved in version -04".

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
The WG Last Call for the -incoming document, with included issues in the -outgoing document, is over.

The following tracked issues have been identified as "open":

1511 Incoming 5.10: Back-license to document authors in resulting RFCs
- WG meeting in Vancouver found current draft text acceptable
1514 Incoming 2: Section 1 should be normative
- WG meeting in Vancouver agreed that sections 1 and 2 should be normative
1515 Incoming 5.6: "Contributor" used with 2 meanings
- WG meeting in Vancouver agreed that there's an issue, and invited drafts
1516 Incoming 5.7: stale reference to section 5.4?
- WG meeting in Vancouver found it best to reference all of section 5 here ("this section")
1517 Incoming 5.3: Right to sub-license
- WG meeting in Vancouver found it appropriate to include "sub-license" explicitly in granted rigts
1539 Incoming 5.1 and 5.3: Language referring to contributors' sponsors
- Mailing list consensus seems to be that we want to say that contributors, by making a contribution, state that they have the right to make the contribution; text should not make it seem as if the contributors' employer or sponsor has to make a statement.


No issues were raised against -outgoing.

A new version of -incoming, -04, was posted after the WG meeting. It includes the resolution of issue #1511, #1514, #1516 and #1517, plus a few other changes, including the "requested" -> "directed" change noted in the Last Call text, and the clarification that the IETF Trust maintains the "legend instructions".

If there is no great protest on the mailing list, I will close those issues as "resolved in -04".

That leaves us with #1515 and #1539 as the two unresolved issues. I think we know what we want to accomplish in both cases, it's a matter of getting the text to say what we want it to say.

Once we have suggested text, we should be able to issue -05, and have the documents reviewed by counsel to check that they will say what we think they say also when they're being read by a lawyer; thereafter, the documents will go to the IESG for emission of an IETF Last Call.

It's likely that the IETF Last Call will occur in 2008, not 2007.

                     Harald


_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg



_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg