Hi - > From: "Russ Housley" <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Doug Ewell" <doug@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <trustees@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 1:07 PM > Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review andcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem > > Doug: > > I hope this response answers your pragmatic questions. > > >1. What do I, as editor of an I-D and previously editor of a > >related RFC that is not quoted in the current I-D, need to do in > >order to allow the WG chairs to move my draft forward into IETF Last Call? > > You can proceed to IETF Last Call now. However, if updates to the > I-D are needed you may be faced with a problem depending on your > situation. I presume that some or all of the text in the I-D was > contributed before 10 Nov 2008. If so, then an update to that I-D > requires you or the WG chair to determine if the people that made the > contribution are willing to grant the additional rights required by > RFC 5378. If so, you are done. If not, you will need some > work-around like the one being discussed on this thread. When updates have been wordsmithed by the WG, is it true that only a person whose exact N words (where N >= X) were used needs to sign off on it, and we don't need to track down every single variation suggested during the wordsmithing? Can we have a guideline for WG chairs on a value for X? > If IETF Last Call or IESG Evaluation brings comments that require an > update to the I-D, then you end up with the same situation. > > If the document is approved without change, then the RFC Editor will > ask each of the authors to grant the additional rights required by > RFC 5378. If this cannot be done, then the document will sit in the > queue until some work-around like the one being discussed on this > thread is implemented. ... In the particular case Doug mentions, there are *no* authors, only editors working under the direction of a WG. Does this still apply? Wouldn't it make more sense for the WG to grant the additional rights, since it is the WG which authored the work. Randy _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf