Subject: Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Proposed Standard

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:38:44 -0800

>Can we have a Proposed Standard
>without the IETF having change control?

No.  RFC3978 says, in section 5.2 where it describes the derivative
works limitation that's present in draft-santesson-tls-ume, "These
notices may not be used with any standards-track document".

  Bill

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:21:42 -0500

I misunderstood the original question.  I'll get it fixed or withdraw 
the Last Call.

Russ

---

From: Bill Strahm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:21:05 -0800

I saw all of the huff, and while I agree with it, I am more concerned about

Appendix A. IPR Disclosure

    TBD

What does that mean, and more specifically is a document with a TBD 
section really ready for last call at all ?

Bill

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:55:06 +0200

Bill Strahm wrote:
> What does that mean, and more specifically is a document with a 
> TBD section really ready for last call at all ?

RFC 3979 Section 11 title says it all: "No IPR Disclosures in IETF 
Documents" -- so this section needs to be removed.

But the "TBD" part probably means the authors were in the process 
of finding out exactly where and how IPRs should be disclosed.
It looks like they've now figured it out:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=688

Best regards,
Pasi