Re: IESG evaluation of our documents, current version

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

Cullen,

I believe Harald is adrift at the moment.

Last I saw, nobody disagreed with what you said:
>> What about  we ask the the RFC Editor to
>> hold this in Auth 48 until the authors have verified that the Trust
>> has published a license agreement that meets the requirements of this
>> document. Then we add a note to the document that this document will
>> come into force only when published by the RFC Editor and not  as soon
>> as it is approved by IESG.

Seems like a simple RFC Editor note is needed, saying exactly those things.

   Brian

On 2008-07-16 05:34, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> I've lost track of where we are on this one.
> 
> Does the WG believe we need to make sure these documents don't come into
> force before the trust statement is ready? If yes, propose some IESG
> note or other modification to make it so. If no, just let me know why
> and I will clear.
> 
> Thanks, Cullen
> 
> On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The Trust needs to tell us how long it thinks this will take, but it
>>> seems
>>> to me that the IESG could proceed with approval with a condition
>>> attached ("this approval becomes effective when the Trust does X"),
>>> to avoid a deadly embrace. Then it will still be necessary to
>>> synchronise
>>> the RFC Editor with the Trust (and the I-D tools too, which was
>>> the hardest thing last time we changed the boilerplate), but at least
>>> the IESG will be out of the loop.
>>>
>>>    Brian
>>
>> This sounds like a good plan - I'm trying to think of the mechanics of
>> how to cause this to happen. What about  we ask the the RFC Editor to
>> hold this in Auth 48 until the authors have verified that the Trust
>> has published a license agreement that meets the requirements of this
>> document. Then we add a note to the document that this document will
>> come into force only when published by the RFC Editor and not  as soon
>> as it is approved by IESG. Seems like this would solve the sequencing
>> issues and would also avoid the IESG having to keep track of when the
>> trust documents got finished.
>>
>> Sound reasonable? Could you propose a RFC Editor and IESG note that
>> could be attached? Or propose some other plan that looks like a good
>> one to you. I'm happy with any plan that solves this problem. I'd need
>> to make sure other IESG folks were OK but I don't anticipate any
>> problems.
>>
>> Cullen
>>
>>
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg