Subject: Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:28:04 -0400 (EDT)

I may have missed it but I did not see any response to my posting
from when these changes were first proposed

along the lines of what John just posted - I thought that the Trust was
supposed to be responsive to requests from the IETF not go off on its own
figuring out things to do

I would like a clear statement of what the trust thinks its role is

and if it not to be responsive to requests from the IETF I think we
need to have a discussion on the IETF list to understand if any other
role is one that is supported by the IETF community

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:49:29 +1200

Hi,

I am baffled why this announcement, of fundamental importance,
was not sent to the correct list for IETF announcements.

The same applies to the original announcement, sent as I
understand it on 23 June, at a time when I wasn't reading
the discussion list for personal reasons.

I will comment substantively when I've had a chance to
read through the proposal and John's appeal. However, I
would suggest that the announcement should be sent
to the IETF announcement list, and that the one month
comment period should start again at that point.

   Brian

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:08:46 -0400

The proposed change to the boilerplate has not drawn a single 
negative comment, and there are a few documents in the RFC Editor 
queue that are waiting for this change.  My preference would be for 
the Trust to approve the revised TLP that have not received any 
negative comments, and thus release the documents in the RFC Editor 
queue.  Then, the Trust should put forward alternative text for the 
sections that have received negative comments, starting another review period.

Russ

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:44:41 -0600

Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec dot com> wrote:

> My preference would be for the Trust to approve the revised TLP that 
> have not received any negative comments, and thus release the 
> documents in the RFC Editor queue.  Then, the Trust should put forward 
> alternative text for the sections that have received negative 
> comments, starting another review period.

So there will likely be yet another revision of the TLP text?  That 
means the already-overworked volunteer tool developers will have to add 
another option to generate new boilerplate, and I-D authors will endure 
another round of idnits telling them their boilerplate is out of date.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:57:23 -0400

Doug:

>>My preference would be for the Trust to approve the revised TLP 
>>that have not received any negative comments, and thus release the 
>>documents in the RFC Editor queue.  Then, the Trust should put 
>>forward alternative text for the sections that have received 
>>negative comments, starting another review period.
>
>means the already-overworked volunteer tool developers will have to 
>add another option to generate new boilerplate, and I-D authors will 
>endure another round of idnits telling them their boilerplate is out of date.

The document that has been under review since June 23rd does require 
a change to the boilerplate.  The period of time that the old 
boilerplate will be accepted for I-D submission should be significant 
in this case.

There are changes necessary to implement 
draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-08 I hope that these changes 
and the ones for the hopefully-soon-to-be-approved TLP can be handled 
in one release.

Since the community is not happy with the proposed TLP changes in 
other areas, it is difficult to predict whether acceptable handling 
of these issues will have an impact on the boilerplate.

Russ