Re. pre-5378 vs. post-5378 material, please note that in many cases, an RFC may be post-5378, but the Internet-Drafts having lead up to it may be pre-5378, or the lastest available Internet- Draft may be post-5378, but earlier ones may be pre-5378. In other words, just looking at things at the RFC level is not enough. That may be obvious to many, just wanted to make sure it doesn't get forgotten. Regards, Martin. At 07:07 09/01/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >John, > >On 2009-01-10 10:32, John C Klensin wrote: >... >> And note that makes a clear and plausible transition model: >> >> (1) Pre-5378 documents exist under pre-5378 rules, so >> any potential user for non-traditional purposes needs to >> either figure out who the relevant authors are and get >> their permission or decide the risk isn't worth worrying >> about. If some of those authors/ contributors make >> explicit transfers to the Trust, that is great, but none >> of them have to take responsibility for identifying all >> of the others. >> >> (3) Post-5378 new documents are posted according to 5378 >> rules, with no exceptions. >> >> (2) Post-5378 documents that incorporate pre-5378 >> materials must used 5378 rules for any material that is >> new. For the earlier materials, and for sorting out >> which is which, the burden falls on the potential user >> for non-traditional purposes to either figure out who >> the relevant authors are and get their permission, >> determine that all relevant authors have already given >> permission, or assume the risks. No one else --neither >> the author(s)/ editor(s) of the new document nor the >> Trust-- is required to take responsibility for pre-5378 >> contributors or contributions. Even an editor of the >> new document that worked on the old material is not >> required to make assertions about new rights on behalf >> of his or her former employer. > >Thanks John, I believe that is an excellent summary of the >viable options. My draft implicitly adds > > (2.5) Post-5378 documents that incorporate pre-5378 > materials whose original contributors have duly agreed are > posted according to 5378 rules, with no exceptions. > >To my mind the main open issue is whether we want to >require authors to try for (2.5) before proceeding to (2). > > Brian >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf