Re: [Ltru] Issue Tracker

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>; "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:29 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Issue Tracker
...
> I did install the latest xml2rfc DTD. It does produce some
> of the correct magic mumbles, but not 6.c.iii.

Ok.  I haven't seen any announcements from the tools folk,
but I imagine they need at least a little time to add this stuff.

> Since we include the 6.c.iii mumble, I have applied the
> noDerivatives200811 IPR directive.

I do not think we want that, since that would hamstring attempts to
revised it in the future.  The 6.c.iii incantation is a matter
of whether we are willing to claim that all the contributors (whoever
they may be) have made the broader grant of rights needed to allow
the IETF to spin the document off to some other organization.  That's
different from disallowing the creation of derivative works, per
6.c.i of http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf

...
> I may need to move the 6.c.iii mumble into the copyright manually before submission.

I don't recall anyone saying exactly where the incantation needs
to go, but it would seem to make sense as the second paragraph
of the "Status of this Memo" section or as a third paragraph in
the copyright notice.  Treating it as ordinary text before the
absract might cause XML2RFC to do the right thing.

Scanning the diffs, two potential problems jumped out at me:
   - The text put in for issue #1 (which was cast as just
     updating a reference) creates a technical change
   - It looks issue #3's agreed text didn't get put in.

PLEASE post followup on these two issues (or on any other issues)
in separate threads, including the issue number in the subject line.

Randy