--On Monday, January 26, 2009 11:01 AM -0500 Theodore Tso
<tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> The problem is the level of due care necessary such that
> he/she can warrant that permissions has been "obtained" is not
> defined. Is the reliance on RFC 5378 sufficient to deem that
> permissions has been "obtained". For example, if Fred
> Flintstone submits text to the maliing list, can I presume
> that he/she has received a copy of the Note Well and has
> therefore has given permission for his text to be used in the
> I-D?
If common sense were relevant here (and it may not be), Fred
gets notified of the Note Well and any changes to it in the
following cases:
(1) When he first subscribes to an IETF-maintained
mailing list. You probably don't know about
notifications vis-a-vis lists that are not maintained by
the IETF but are used by IETF groups.
(2) When he registers for an IETF meeting, if he ever
does that.
(3) When he actually listens to the announcement at the
beginning of a face to face WG meeting or reads the
associated slide.
(4) When a notice is sent out to the IETF Announce or
main IETF discussion list, if he reads them.
(5) When a notice is sent out to the WG mailing lists to
which he subscribes.
(6) If he goes looking for it.
Now, in this case, the Note Well used for IETF 73 was the old
version, so, if Fred relies on (2) or (3), he hasn't heard about
this yet. If Fred has been participating in the WG since before
the Note Well was updated (sometime in late November or early
December, if I recall), then (1) doesn't apply. As far as I
know, there has been no systematic effort to send the new Note
Well out to WG mailing lists; certainly I haven't seen it on any
WG mailing lists I'm on.
That leaves your reliance, if common sense is relevant and one
can't expect to hold Fred accountable for a policy unless he had
a plausible way to be notified or find out about it, on (4) and
maybe on (6). And we know that, at least historically, even
some IESG members do not read every posting on the IETF Announce
or Discussion lists.
And that is why I continue to object to the use of November 10
in the workaround statement as a cutoff for Contributions that
can safely be assumed to be covered by 5378.
But IANAL and maybe common sense is irrelevant and the IETF gets
to assume that everyone is bound by a policy about which no
announcement has been made which they can be expected to see.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf