---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:08 AM
Subject: [KEYPROV] FW: RFC 5378 Implications
To: ECRIT <
ecrit@xxxxxxxx>,
keyprov@xxxxxxxx,
dime@xxxxxxxx
FYI
Two shorter writeups from Bernard Aboba and Paul Hoffman.
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
owner-radiusext@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:
owner-radiusext@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
>Sent: 14 January, 2009 21:50
>To:
radiusext@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RFC 5378 Implications
>
>As some of you may know, as a result of the publication of RFC
>5378, the IETF
>has changed the boilerplate required for Internet-Draft submissions.
>
>It is important that all contributors know the terms under
>which contributions are made, and to understand the
>requirements imposed by RFC 5378, as well as the problems that
>some people have had with it.
>
>Currently, a discussion is underway on the IETF Discuss
>mailing list relating to the implications of RFC 5378, as well
>as potential fixes to it.
>
>If you are a contributor or potential contributor within the
>RADEXT WG, and are interested in understanding your
>obligations and responsibilities under the new policies,
>please consult the IETF Discussion archive:
>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/maillist.html
>
>Discussion of this topic on individual Working Group mailing
>lists is discouraged.
>
>Some recent postings on the IETF Discussion list:
>IETF Trustee Request for Review:
>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg54839.html
>IAD statement:
>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg54691.html
>IETF Chair statement:
>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg54502.html
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
ipsec-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:
ipsec-bounces@xxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
>Sent: 14 January, 2009 23:25
>To: IPsecme WG
>Subject: [IPsec] RFC 5378 and this WG
>
>Greetings again. If you are an author or contributor on in
>this WG, please read
><
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg54839.htm
>l>. It is important.
>
>The WG Chairs have been asked to make their WGs aware of this
>issue. This is a complicated subject, but the executive
>summary is that if you have an Internet-Draft that quotes
>substantially from one or more older RFCs (ones with a
>publication date pre-November 11, 2008), and you did not write
>this earlier work yourself (or you wrote it while with another
>company), you need to be aware of the likely difficulty of
>obtaining RFC 5378 clearances for your new work, and also to
>be aware that a work-around is on the way. The work-around
>should be in place to allow submissions to the San Francisco
>IETF well before the normal deadlines. See the attached text
>for more details.
>
>There is an open question about whether or not an Internet
>Draft that quotes from the WG discussion also needs clearance
>from the person who proposed text in the discussion. For
>example, IKEv2bis has a lot of material that has been proposed
>on this mailing list.
>
>If you feel that you have a draft for which this will be a
>problem, please contact me.
>
>With a chair hat on, I am not going to allow a general
>discussion about RFC 5378 on this list (as it is very
>off-topic). Please take such comments to the main IETF
>discussion list. Questions about specific WG drafts are of
>course on topic.
>
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>--VPN Consortium
>_______________________________________________
>IPsec mailing list
>
IPsec@xxxxxxxx
>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>
_______________________________________________
KEYPROV mailing list
KEYPROV@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov