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

Re: IESG evaluation of our documents, current version

Russ -
----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com> 
To: "TS Glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>
Cc: <iesg at ietf.org>; <ipr-wg at ietf.org>; <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: IESG evaluation of our documents, current version
My messages on this thread have nothing to do with any comments you may have raised. I was responding to concerns raised by Cullen, who does not want the RFC published until the IETF Trust has made their posting that will be referenced by the RFC.
Either Ed or I can confirm that the IETF Trust posting has occurred to the RFC Editor when they believe the document is otherwise read to be published as an RFC.
Uh... "believe"? - When the Editors publishes something they need to more than believe that something is ready. They need to be capable of demonstrating to anyone's concern that this is true, including US Courts. 



Russ

At 02:47 PM 7/16/2008, TS Glassey wrote:
Russ - that's not enough. Being 'aware' of something if that awareness cannot be demonstrated is not sufficient to assure in a legal sense that something happens. So what I am saying is that any formal responsibilities which are role specific need to be codified in a set of practice statements. As an Auditor I can point out any number of legal precedents that make this true... 

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com>
To: "TS Glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>; <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>; <iesg at ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: IESG evaluation of our documents, current version



Todd:
I'm simply saying that both myself and Ed will be aware whether or not the license is posted, so we can be the point of contact for the confirmation that it has been posted. I do not see Cullen's as asking for anything more than confirmation of the posting. 

Russ


At 11:10 AM 7/16/2008, TS Glassey wrote:
Russ - are you saying that there is a 'formal responsibility' to perform here? If so then when a NEW Chair is inducted they will have to formally agree to be bound by this - meaning that the Chair and ALL ISEG member's will have to sign Service Contracts defining their 
       a) Responsibilities
       b) Do's and Dont's
c) And providing an assurance that they formally represent the Legal Interests (i.e. they possess an enduring Power Of Attorney - POA) for that sponsor so that they may act on behalf of their Sponsor(s)).
As to why - it should be pretty obvious... Now there are no Service Contracts and as such there is no real Role and Responsibility Description therein. 

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy at cisco.com>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>; <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>; <iesg at ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: IESG evaluation of our documents, current version



Cullen:
I think that the IETF Chair or IETF Trust Chair are the right people to provide the RFC Editor with assurance that the required license has been posted. Also, I changed the wording to link both documents since the IPR WG has requested that the documents be published at the same time. 

I added this note in the Data Tracker:

  These documents will not come into force until it is published as an
  RFC.  RFC Editor, please do not publish them until you get
  confirmation from the IETF Chair or IETF Trust Chair that the IETF
  Trust has published a license agreement that meets the requirements
  contained in these documents.

Russ


At 04:36 AM 7/16/2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

I believe either the iesg or the trust should send the note, not the
authors - otherwise this is good with me. Harald, on holidays

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Jul 2008, at 05:03, Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com> wrote:



I certainly understand this being a busy time for folks.

Russ, if this looks reasonable to you let's do this and if you and
WG later decide this is the wrong path I'm fine with it getting
changed to whatever is an appropriate solutions. I'm proposing an
RFC Ed notes along lines of:

RFC Ed Note:

This document will not come into force until it is published as an
RFC. RFC Editor, please do not publish this RFC until you get
confirmation from authors that the Trust has published a license
agreement that meets the requirements of this document.



On Jul 15, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:


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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.11/1554 - Release Date: 7/15/2008 6:03 PM 




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1555 - Release Date: 7/16/2008 6:43 AM 






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.1/1560 - Release Date: 7/18/2008 6:47 AM 




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