Re: [Ltru] Issue Tracker

[Martin Duerst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>]

Hello Randy, others,

I agree with almost everything. On 4645bis, I'd note that:
- The text in there is mostly if not completely fresh.
- Some of the data part isn't fresh, but that's a mechanical
  compilation.
- Based on the above and similar considerations, Doug already
  submitted an I-D without the pre-RFC 5378 escape hatch,
  so the decision has already been made.
- If there is anything serious from the very early independent
  drafts that Addison and Mark wrote remaining in 4645bis, then
  what would be needed from Addison and Mark is just telling
  us (or Doug, to be specific) that they are okay for 4645bis
  without the escape hatch, which I think they have already done.
  Them signing the form is not a bad idea, but can be done
  separately.

Regards,   Martin.

At 04:35 09/02/18, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>
>As co-chair...
>
>> From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com>
>> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>; "LTRU Working Group" 
><ltru at ietf.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:57 AM
>> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Issue Tracker
>>
>> I have no objection to omitting the 6.c.iii from 4645bis (or including it,
>> if Doug prefers). Should Mark and I file anything related to 4645bis?
>
>The "Contributor Non-Exclusive License" at http://trustee.ietf.org/licenses.html
>is still undergoing revision.  If you like, you could fill it out and send
>it in when it becomes possible to do so.  In the meantime, if you and
>Mark made clear on this list your intent to do so, that should be sufficient
>to make life easier for Doug. (BTW, I also intend to sign the "Contributor
>Non-Exclusive License" when it becomes available.)
>
>In Doug's case, if he is comfortable that the relevant contributors
>are willing to grant the same rights for their pre-RFC 5378
>contributions as they now grant under the "NOTE WELL" currently in
>effect, (that's what signing the license accomplishes) then he doesn't
>need to do the 6.c.iii.  The only reason I encourage doing 6.c.iii for
>*4646bis* is that there's a much larger set of contributors whose text
>may have made it verbatim into the document, and it's not immediately clear
>whether all of them have agreed / will agree to the RFC 5378 terms for
>their pre-RFC 5378 contributions.
>
>> After all, I suppose one could obliquely consider draft-langtag
>> (way back at the start of this project) to be the source of 4645
>> (neither of us has ever edited the document, please note).
>
>In this particular case, since the issue is copyright, there is
>a concern only if significant text has been copied verbatim.
>If the authors of that earlier work can assure Doug that they
>agree to the 5378 terms, then there is no need for 6.c.iii,
>at least as far as those portions of the text are concerned.
>
>I hope this makes things clearer.  (I also hope that I've understood
>the issues correctly.  Martin, please speak up if I've mis-stated
>anything.)
>
>Randy
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp