----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Fenner" <fenner@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Russ Housley" <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <trustees@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:35 PM Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review andcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Tom.Petch <sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ed's original announcement also placed significance on 0100 UTC on 16th December > > appearing to allow a grace period up until then during which 5378 was not in > > effect, since old boiler plate was acceptable. > > This is not quite accurate. RFC 5378 became BCP 78 at the time of > publication on November 11th; even the old text says > " This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions > contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors > retain all their rights." > > So if you published an I-D with those words in it after RFC 5378 was > published as BCP 78, then that I-D is subject to the rights, licenses > and restrictions contained in RFC 5378. Thanks for the correction. I also had in mind contributions to mailing lists where the Note Well - eg the one sent out to this list on 1 January 2009 - references RFC5378 (or not as is the case in other settings) rather than BCP78. I am unclear whether this is by design or whether it is something that has yet to be brought in line with current thinking. Isn't it complicated? Tom Petch > > Bill _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf