Agreed. Good comments! Thank You. Best Regards, Ed J. -----Original Message----- From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] Sent: February 6, 2009 11:11 AM To: Thomas Narten; Ed Juskevicius Cc: Trustees; wgchairs@xxxxxxxx; Contreras, Jorge; ietf@xxxxxxxx; iab@xxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx; rfc-editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Last Call for Comments: Proposed work-around to the Pre-5378 Problem --On Friday, February 06, 2009 10:30 -0500 Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But for case iii), there are two "contributors" at issue. The > one submitting the document, and possible pre-5378 > contributors who's text has been included in the document. >... > For case iii), it should remain clear that the document > author/contributor is agreeing to the full 5378 coverage for > his/her contribution (made subequent to 5378), but that they > take no position regarding the pre-5378 text that may have > been incorporated. >... Yes. I thought I pointed this distinction out weeks ago, but perhaps I'm losing my mind. The goal is not to exempt authors from asserting their own compliance to 5378, but to avoid their having to make any assertions on behalf of others (or even to explicitly identify those other beyond our normal requirements for acknowledgement). john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf