Re: [Ltru] Issue Tracker

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

Hi -

As co-chair:

> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 6:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue Tracker
>
> "Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote:
>
> > I did install the latest xml2rfc DTD. It does produce some of the
> > correct magic mumbles, but not 6.c.iii. Since we include the 6.c.iii
> > mumble, I have applied the noDerivatives200811 IPR directive.
>
> That would be exactly the wrong IPR statement to use in draft-4645bis,
> since one of its major raisons d'être is to allow IANA to create a
> derivative work, namely the replacement Language Subtag Registry.  So
> I'm eagerly awaiting guidance on what statement I should use.
...

noDerivatives200811 is definitely NOT the option to use.

With regard to 4645bis, the question is whether Doug, as editor,
sees a need for the 6.c.iii option.  That's it, and it's his
decision.  If all (or practically all) the words are his, or
were his in a previous incarnation, then there should be no
need for the 6.c.iii text.

Also worth keeping in mind: what is the likelihood that someone
who contributed substantial text (not just an idea) to the development
of 4645bis would sue if IANA used that text?  What is the probability
that such a litigant would prevail in court?

Randy