Subject: [MEXT] rfc3775 issues resolved.

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:30:58 -0800

Hello folks,

I have looked over the mailing list since last
summer, and reviewed the IETF 76 minutes.
The only additional material I found was
already incorporated into
draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-05.  I updated
the text on the issues tracker for ticket #19
(BU de-registration race condition).

I think all three issues can be considered
resolved and closed.  I didn't find any
new issues, but if I missed anything please
let me know ASAP.  The existing draft does
not expire until April (after the next IETF).
If there are no other issues, I guess the
draft is ready to be sent to the IESG.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:43:07 +0100

WG members - hello,

First yes I agree with the Note Well and I will discuss licensing in
tlp-interest list, ok, thanks.

I wanted to state publicly here that I do not agree with the licensing
scheme which may apply to several drafts in this WG related to MIP6
(rfc3775bis, prefix delegation, v4traversal) (i.e. if you use ipr
attribute "trust200902" in xml, if xml2rfc is used).  I do not agree
with the statement "Code Components extracted from this document... BSD
license".

I am doing so because I think I may have made technical remarks on these
drafts, in the past, but now I realize the new licensing scheme
("trust200902") may not suit me well.

End of statement, it's here posted in MEXT, thanks.

Alex

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:09:06 +0100

Hi Alex,

reply below

El 17/02/10 18:43, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
> (rfc3775bis, prefix delegation, v4traversal) 

there is nothing we can about v4 traversal since it already publish as 
RFC, but with respect the other two, what do you suggest we do?

or you just want to state your unhapiness with the IPR approach in 
general wihtout any alternative approach the WG can take?
If that is the case, it is noted.
If not, please propose what would be your alternative approach and see 
if we can do it.

Regards, marcelo

> (i.e. if you use ipr
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:30:44 +0100

MArcelo, hi, thank you for asking.

I must be very careful here because in several WGs I have been strongly
redirected to tlp-interest.

Briefly.

Le 17/02/2010 19:09, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>> First yes I agree with the Note Well and I will discuss licensing
>> in tlp-interest list, ok, thanks.
>>
>> I wanted to state publicly here that I do not agree with the
>> licensing scheme which may apply to several drafts in this WG
>> related to MIP6
>>
> there is nothing we can about v4 traversal since it already publish
> as RFC,

YEs, I agree, sorry, I missed that v4traversal became RFC, and
congratulations.  Indeed RFC5555 has its licensing ok with me - it
doesn't say "BSD".

> but with respect the other two, what do you suggest we do?

Well, principally I suggest changing the boilerplate.  I will come here
later if the use arises when the "Code Componets" text appears in the
draft, when draft authors will use the necessary(?) ipr attribute, if
xml2rfc is used.

> general wihtout any alternative approach the WG can take?

I am unhappy about the licensing, not necessarily IPR.  Several IPR
disclosures at IETF are ok with me.  What bothers me right now is the
"BSD" licensing appearing in every draft. (search "BSD" or "Code
Components" in recent drafts, seems mandatory).

> If that is the case, it is noted.

YEs, please note I am unhappy with the boilerplate saying "Code
Components extracted from this document... BSD".  Especially when it
tags the drafts to which I may have commented technically.

> If not, please propose what would be your alternative approach and
> see if we can do it.

WEll, each draft - prefix delegation, rfc3775bis - may need a different
licensing approach; the main idea would be to give freedom to the
implementer to tag the license s/he wants, not necessarily BSD.  This
was the case in the past, prior to the most recent boilerplate.

(sorry when I try to discuss this many strange things happen like
  automatically getting subscribed to -honest, bounces from trustees,
  and more, I must be very careful).

Thanks,

Alex

>
> Regards, marcelo
>
>
>> (i.e. if you use ipr attribute "trust200902" in xml, if xml2rfc is
>>  used). I do not agree with the statement "Code Components
>> extracted from this document... BSD license".
>>
>> I am doing so because I think I may have made technical remarks on
>>  these drafts, in the past, but now I realize the new licensing
>> scheme ("trust200902") may not suit me well.
>>
>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:49:11 +0100

Alex,

simple question: is there any of the current available attributes in 
xml2rfc that are ok with you for rfc3775bis or for nemo pd?
If yes could you provide a concrete suggestion of what the attribute you 
propose we use for each of the draft so the WG can comment.
Regards, marcelo

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:47:03 +0100

Le 17/02/2010 19:49, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
> xml2rfc that are ok with you for rfc3775bis or for nemo pd? If yes
> could you provide a concrete suggestion of what the attribute you

I don't know what to say.  All I can do is wait :-)

I am trying to identify the ipr attribute (ipr="xxx" in xml sources)
which leads to the best boilerplate which bests suits my interests for
MEXT drafts.  In order to do that I am seeking advice on several lists.

The most relevant seems to be the list  [email-masked].
However I can't post to it after several tests, and new re-subscription
(just another strangeness).  I have sent private email to a person ask
for help.  I hope it's simply a technical issue.

Also I am privately told that xml2rfc may not be up to date with the
most recent Trust provisions.

Another interesting list is tlp-interest but which should be accompanied 
by a post Cc to [email-masked], from which I get bounces.  I do not 
know how to interpret it - is it simply a technical error?  Is it that 
the Trustees don't want mail from me?  It's strange to ask a Cc to 
[email-masked] only to bounce it back...

I am trying to keep things as simple as possible but this is sometimes
too complicated for me.

I am waiting :-)

Alex

>> I must be very careful here because in several WGs I have been
>> strongly redirected to tlp-interest.
>>
>> Briefly.
>>
>>>> First yes I agree with the Note Well and I will discuss
>>>> licensing in tlp-interest list, ok, thanks.
>>>>
>>> there is nothing we can about v4 traversal since it already
>>> publish as RFC,
>>
>> Well, principally I suggest changing the boilerplate. I will come
>> here later if the use arises when the "Code Componets" text
>> appears in the draft, when draft authors will use the necessary(?)
>> ipr attribute, if xml2rfc is used.
>>
>>> or you just want to state your unhapiness with the IPR approach
>>> in general wihtout any alternative approach the WG can take?
>>
>>  disclosures at IETF are ok with me. What bothers me right now is
>> the "BSD" licensing appearing in every draft. (search "BSD" or
>> "Code Components" in recent drafts, seems mandatory).
>>
>>> If not, please propose what would be your alternative approach
>>> and see if we can do it.
>>
>> WEll, each draft - prefix delegation, rfc3775bis - may need a
>> different licensing approach; the main idea would be to give
>> freedom to the implementer to tag the license s/he wants, not
>> necessarily BSD. This was the case in the past, prior to the most
>> recent boilerplate.
>>
>>>> (i.e. if you use ipr attribute "trust200902" in xml, if
>>>> xml2rfc is used). I do not agree with the statement "Code
>>>> Components extracted from this document... BSD license".
>>>>
>>>> I am doing so because I think I may have made technical
>>>> remarks on these drafts, in the past, but now I realize the
>>>> new licensing scheme ("trust200902") may not suit me well.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>>

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:52:21 +0100

ok, when you do have a concrete proposal, bring to the WG for consideration.

regards, marcelo

El 17/02/10 21:47, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
> Another interesting list is tlp-interest but which should be 
> accompanied by a post Cc to [email-masked], from which I get 
> bounces.  I do not know how to interpret it - is it simply a technical 
> error?  Is it that the Trustees don't want mail from me?  It's strange 
> to ask a Cc to [email-masked] only to bounce it back...
>