W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > May 2009

IETF submission - status

From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 16:30:27 -0700
Message-ID: <4A149293.50607@tibco.com>
To: "SOAP/JMS (list)" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Well, I was going on my merry way, updating the URI scheme for JMS.

Alas, I believe I've hit a brick wall.  Making the necessary changes was
relatively straightforward.

I've committed them to the same old VCS we've been using.

Trouble is, the IETF has apparently changed their legalese required on
their submissions.

To wit: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5378

To generate a proposal that conforms to the new IPR statements,
apparently we need to use the "preliminary" update to the xml2rfc tool:
http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html

This takes seven new choices for IPR disclosure.

    * trust200811, trust200902 (appear to be identical)
    * noModificationTrust200811, noModificationTrust200902 (appear to be
      identical)
    * noDerivativesTrust200811, noDerivativesTrust200902 (appear to be
      identical)
    * pre5378Trust200902

These choices appear in the "rfc" tag.  Absent any other input from
anyone, the pre5378Trust200902 option appears to be the correct choice. 
For maximum (re)use, I suspect it would be better if we could use
"trust200902".

I took our existing document, stripped out almost all of the contents
(since these materials are archived publicly, including the actual
material with varying IPR disclosures would be a lawyer's nightmare),
and generated using each of the options above.  Note that some of the
documents differ only in date, as my exercise in generating them spanned
the change of date in GMT+0.  Attached is a zip of the eight different
generated forms including the original full3978 form that we used to
provide.

Since I cannot assume any particular choice on behalf of each of you, I
need to hear back from each of you on which choice is the correct one. 
To simplify the discussion, the first question is whether or not
"trust200902" is acceptable.  If it isn't, what other choices are?

-Eric.


Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 23:31:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:20 GMT