Subject: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:24:47 -0400

All,
      This message starts a 2-week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on
advancing:

      Title     : IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between
                  Links and Subnet Prefixes
      Author(s) : H. Singh, et al.
      Filename  : draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-05.txt
      Pages     : 11
      Date      : 2009-05-15

as a Proposed Standard.  Substantive comments and statements of support
for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list.
Editorial suggestions can be sent to the document editor.  This last
call will end on October 14, 2009.

Regards,
Brian & Bob
6MAN co-chairs

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:30:11 -0400

The Last Call will end on November 14th, not October 14th.

Regards,
Brian

Brian Haberman wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:56:49 +1300

Supported.

Two comments, however.

1. An Updates: 4861 header is required

2. Why does it contain the "pre-5378" disclaimer
("This document may contain material...")?

If the only issue is that material conributed by Thomas Narten
is included, Thomas could give us the OK to use standard
boilerplate without the annoying disclaimer.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:24:02 -0400

> Supported.

Thanks!

> 1. An Updates: 4861 header is required

Agreed!

> 2. Why does it contain the "pre-5378" disclaimer ("This document may
contain material...")?

> If the only issue is that material conributed by Thomas Narten is
included, Thomas could give
> us the OK to use standard boilerplate without the annoying disclaimer.

>   Brian Carpenter

To be on the safe side, to clear our employers from potential liability,
we would probably need to get everyone on the contributor and
acknowledgement list (or, more importantly, their employers at the time
of contribution) to agree with the new terms of 5378 in writing before
we could get rid of the pre-5378 disclaimer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.  Contributors

   Thomas Narten contributed significant text and provided substantial
   guidance to the production of this document.

9.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks (in alphabetical order) to Adeel Ahmed, Jari Arkko, Ralph
   Droms, Alun Evans, Dave Forster, Prashanth Krishnamurthy, Suresh
   Krishnan, Josh Littlefield, Bert Manfredi, David Miles, Madhu Sudan,
   Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler, Bernie Volz, and Vlad Yasevich for their
   consistent input, ideas and review during the production of this
   document.  The security problem related to an NS message that
   provides one reason for invalidating a part of the on-link definition
   was found by David Miles.  Jinmei Tatuya found the security problem
   to also exist with an RS message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

If we really want to get rid of the pre-5378 disclaimer, the authors can
make an attempt to get all of the appropriate rights from all of the 
people above to give to the Trustees.  Fortunately, many of these people

were employed by Cisco at the time this work was done.  Do you remember
where 
the website of employer/author waivers of 5378 is located?  That would
give 
us a good head start...

- Wes