Without forcing me to read all the referenced documents, is there an easy way to determine whether any IPR disclosures relating to these documents need to be correlated and disclosed? /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:35 PM > To: Julian Reschke > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions > forDistributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard > > > On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > RFC2518bis updates parts of RFC3253 (DAV:error below DAV:response) > > in an > > incompatible way, and thus should note it in the front matter > > ("Updates: 3253") and mention it as a change near the Changes > > Appendix. > > > > (see <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi? > > id=258>) > > > > Best regards, Julian > > > Sent with my behave chair hat on ... > > This is always a complicated problem of does an update document > update the documents that depend on the drafts it's updates. An > extreme example is should TLS 1.2 update every document that uses TLS > 1.0. It's pretty unwieldy to take that path so I I think a better > path is that 3253 depends on 2518 and when we update 3253, then it > will be changed to depend on the RFC that comes out of the 2518bis > draft. > > The WG definitely considered the impact of the incompatibilities here > and decided that this was an acceptable path - the only question we > are trying to sort out here is if the id tracker shows this an up > update on 3253 or not. > > Cullen > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf