Re: Future time zone home
At 06:11 21-10-10, Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] wrote:
In response to the need to find a new time zone home before I'm eligible to retire in 2012, Eliot Lear and Paul Eggert have authored the draft document "IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone Database" now available from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) web site:
As the intended status of the document is BCP, I'll comment on it from that angle. In Section 1: "Those registries are coordinated by technical experts who are designated by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)." For what it's worth, some of these registries might not fall under the IESG. In Section 2: 'This list membership will be transitioned to the IETF mail server. The TZ coordinator will continue to manage the list, in accordance with rules of governance for non-WG mailing lists (including, for example, the commonly used "Note Well" statement).' Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules? In Section 4: "From time to time it will be necessary to replace a TZ Coordinator. This could occur for a number of reasons:" I suggest "appoint" instead of "replace". "The IESG MUST use rough consensus of the TZ mailing list as their primary guide to further action, when it exists." As the document is a BCP, these requirement could be changed in future. In Section 5: "No change shall be made to the license without consultation and rough consensus of the community." The document uses "rough consensus" instead of consensus". The barrier is lower for the former. The above text mentioned "community". Is that the TZ community? In Section 6: "It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database itself is public domain." I suggest replacing "IESG" with "IETF" as the IESG operates within the IETF. "Should claims be made and substantiated against the database, the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders." I suggest putting code distribution under the IETF so that the legal aspect falls under the IETF Trust. The following sentence could then be removed: "Should claims be made and substantiated against the database, the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders." I suggest removing "further" from the following sentence: "No further ownership claims will be made by IANA, the IETF Trust, or ISOC on the database." In Section 7: "The IANA will see that the role of TZ Coordinator is filled, based on the procedures described above." According to Section 4, it is the IESG that does that. There is a MoU between IANA and the IETF for IETF protocols. There has been various interpretations of that MoU. An alternative to avoid non-technical concerns is to place the distribution of the database under the RFC Editor and explore having the material with a status similar to the Independent Submission Stream. I am not suggesting a license change. The following text is an adaption from RFC 4846: To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy, publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution. The Contributor, each named co-Contributor, and the organizations represented above irrevocably and in perpetuity grant the rights listed below to the Internet Community: A. to prepare or allow the preparation of translations of the TZ database into languages other than English, B to prepare derivative works (other than translations) that are based on or incorporate all or part of the TZ Contribution, or comment upon it. The license to such derivative works shall not grant the IETF Trust, the IETF, or other party preparing a derivative work any more rights than the license to the original TZ Contribution, and C. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names that are included in the TZ Contribution solely in connection with the reproduction, distribution, or publication of the TZ Contribution and derivative works. At 09:09 21-10-10, Tony Finch wrote:
Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain. There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.
Yes. Regards, -sm
SM, Thanks again for the review. Once again, I will not advance this work without support from this community. If you want to see this document advance, please comment on it. Now please see below. On 10/24/10 11:18 AM, SM wrote:
At 06:11 21-10-10, Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] wrote:
In response to the need to find a new time zone home before I'm eligible to retire in 2012, Eliot Lear and Paul Eggert have authored the draft document "IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone Database" now available from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) web site:
As the intended status of the document is BCP, I'll comment on it from that angle. In Section 1:
"Those registries are coordinated by technical experts who are designated by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
For what it's worth, some of these registries might not fall under the IESG.
That is from RFC 5226.
In Section 2:
'This list membership will be transitioned to the IETF mail server. The TZ coordinator will continue to manage the list, in accordance with rules of governance for non-WG mailing lists (including, for example, the commonly used "Note Well" statement).'
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?
Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property claims based on their contributions.
In Section 4:
"From time to time it will be necessary to replace a TZ Coordinator. This could occur for a number of reasons:"
I suggest "appoint" instead of "replace".
Ok.
"The IESG MUST use rough consensus of the TZ mailing list as their primary guide to further action, when it exists."
As the document is a BCP, these requirement could be changed in future.
True. This is what we are saying today.
In Section 5:
"No change shall be made to the license without consultation and rough consensus of the community."
The document uses "rough consensus" instead of consensus". The barrier is lower for the former. The above text mentioned "community". Is that the TZ community?
In fact I think this text needs to be reworked. I don't think we really CAN or SHOULD change the license terms for something that is either (a) already licensed by someone else or (b) in the public domain. Again, the intent is to maintain the status quo from this regard, but to allow for some future additions that might require some sort of protection (tho what I cannot actually fathom). How about just dropping everything after "license" and inserting ", should one exist"?
In Section 6:
"It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database itself is public domain."
I suggest replacing "IESG" with "IETF" as the IESG operates within the IETF.
added IETF (should we all agree).
"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database, the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."
I suggest putting code distribution under the IETF so that the legal aspect falls under the IETF Trust.
The following sentence could then be removed:
"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database, the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."
I don't understand your intent. I do not want to remove text here without a suggested replacement.
I suggest removing "further" from the following sentence:
"No further ownership claims will be made by IANA, the IETF Trust, or ISOC on the database."
Done
In Section 7:
"The IANA will see that the role of TZ Coordinator is filled, based on the procedures described above."
According to Section 4, it is the IESG that does that.
Changed to: The IANA will assist the IESG, as required, in filling of the TZ Coordinator,, based on the procedures described above. Read: let the IESG know if the TZ coordinator has resigned, grant access, revoke access, as required.
There is a MoU between IANA and the IETF for IETF protocols. There has been various interpretations of that MoU. An alternative to avoid non-technical concerns is to place the distribution of the database under the RFC Editor and explore having the material with a status similar to the Independent Submission Stream. I am not suggesting a license change. The following text is an adaption from RFC 4846:
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy, publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.
The Contributor, each named co-Contributor, and the organizations represented above irrevocably and in perpetuity grant the rights listed below to the Internet Community:
A. to prepare or allow the preparation of translations of the TZ database into languages other than English,
B to prepare derivative works (other than translations) that are based on or incorporate all or part of the TZ Contribution, or comment upon it. The license to such derivative works shall not grant the IETF Trust, the IETF, or other party preparing a derivative work any more rights than the license to the original TZ Contribution, and
C. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names that are included in the TZ Contribution solely in connection with the reproduction, distribution, or publication of the TZ Contribution and derivative works.
That sounds okay, but I would like to hear from others. Is this actually required, given the Note Well statement?
At 09:09 21-10-10, Tony Finch wrote:
Apart from three files, the current tzcode distribution is public domain. There is no single BSD licence so this statement is ambiguous. In fact the licence on the three special files is more like a MIT licence.
Yes.
Dealt with. Eliot
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 10/24/10 11:18 AM, SM wrote:
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?
Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property claims based on their contributions.
The Note Well rules say the opposite. The IETF only requires a limited copyright licence that most notably does not permit the IETF to sublicence any contributions. This isn't sufficient for the TZ project, since TZ users need to be able to modify and redistribute it. See RFC 5378 section 5.3 nd 5.4 and note that sublicensing to the general public is not included. I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). Patents are perhaps less of an issue since the TZ project has ignored them in the past. The IETF's position is marginally stronger: it requires disclosure of any patents that claim to cover the technology, but it does not require any licence to the IETF or even a promise to licence to people using the IETF's work. I think the IETF's requirements for trademarks are suitable for the TZ project. By the way, did you see my earlier message which points out some errors in your draft's text about licensing? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.time.tz/3438
I am not suggesting a license change. The following text is an adaption from RFC 4846:
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy, publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.
I note that SM's suggested text does not include an equivalent licence to organizations other than the IETF. RFC 4846 says "grant the same license to those organizations and to the community as a whole" which is perhaps broad enough (and, oddly, seems to be more liberal than the IETF contributors' licence). However this isn't a public domain licence so it *is* a change to the existing TZ licence. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.
Tony, Thanks for your contributions. More comments later. Eliot On 10/26/10 12:15 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 10/24/10 11:18 AM, SM wrote:
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules? Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property claims based on their contributions. The Note Well rules say the opposite.
The IETF only requires a limited copyright licence that most notably does not permit the IETF to sublicence any contributions. This isn't sufficient for the TZ project, since TZ users need to be able to modify and redistribute it. See RFC 5378 section 5.3 nd 5.4 and note that sublicensing to the general public is not included.
I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
Patents are perhaps less of an issue since the TZ project has ignored them in the past. The IETF's position is marginally stronger: it requires disclosure of any patents that claim to cover the technology, but it does not require any licence to the IETF or even a promise to licence to people using the IETF's work.
I think the IETF's requirements for trademarks are suitable for the TZ project.
By the way, did you see my earlier message which points out some errors in your draft's text about licensing?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.time.tz/3438
I am not suggesting a license change. The following text is an adaption from RFC 4846:
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy, publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution. I note that SM's suggested text does not include an equivalent licence to organizations other than the IETF. RFC 4846 says "grant the same license to those organizations and to the community as a whole" which is perhaps broad enough (and, oddly, seems to be more liberal than the IETF contributors' licence).
However this isn't a public domain licence so it *is* a change to the existing TZ licence.
Tony.
Hi Eliot, Tony, At 01:28 26-10-10, Eliot Lear wrote:
Yes. That is, people shouldn't expect to make any intellectual property claims based on their contributions.
Tony Finch commented on the "Note Well".
True. This is what we are saying today.
Some of the pointed I mentioned was so that people fully understand what to expect.
In fact I think this text needs to be reworked. I don't think we really CAN or SHOULD change the license terms for something that is either (a) already licensed by someone else or (b) in the public domain. Again, the intent is to maintain the status quo from this regard, but to allow for some future additions that might require some sort of protection (tho what I cannot actually fathom). How about just dropping everything after "license" and inserting ", should one exist"?
Please note that nothing in this message or any message I post on this thread should be considered as legal advice. There are what are called inbound and outbound "rights". (b) falls under outbound "rights". Getting into a licensing discussion or changes to the hosting changes the status quo. That cannot be avoided if this community would like to have a future time zone home. I'll comment on this again below.
I don't understand your intent. I do not want to remove text here without a suggested replacement.
Getting into "competent court orders" opens the way for more problems. The time zone database currently flies under the radar for historical reasons. Creating a structure creates visibility and opens the way for politically correct or other claims. Maybe this is far-fetched.
Changed to:
The IANA will assist the IESG, as required, in filling of the TZ Coordinator,, based on the procedures described above.
Read: let the IESG know if the TZ coordinator has resigned, grant access, revoke access, as required.
Ok. At 03:15 26-10-10, Tony Finch wrote:
I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
It would be good if it said "public domain".
I note that SM's suggested text does not include an equivalent licence to organizations other than the IETF. RFC 4846 says "grant the same license to those organizations and to the community as a whole" which is perhaps broad enough (and, oddly, seems to be more liberal than the IETF contributors' licence).
However this isn't a public domain licence so it *is* a change to the existing TZ licence.
As I mentioned previously, I am not arguing for a change in the license. The text I quoted is not appropriate for "public domain" material. It is more liberal than the IETF contributors' license. It does not try to identify "code", i.e. code falls under the same license as the text. It allows derivative work. In essence, it does not protect the TZ database except for permission to compile and public the original work. I'll adapt some text to elaborate on "rights": "Certain documents, including those produced by the U.S. government and those which are in the public domain, may not be protected by the same copyright and other legal rights as other documents. Nevertheless, we ask each Contributor to grant to the IETF the same rights as he or she would grant, and to make the same representations, as though the IETF Contribution were protected by the same legal rights as other documents, and as though the Contributor could be able to grant these rights. We ask for these grants and representations only to the extent that the Contribution may be protected. We believe they are necessary to protect the IETF all IETF participants and also because the IETF does not have the resources or wherewithal to make any independent investigation as to the actual proprietary status of any document submitted to it." The gist here is to assign rights to avoid legal conundrums. That should allay IETF concerns. I am not sure how to get "public domain" in there if this community wants a formal home to cover everything. If the issues can be separated, it may make matters easier. Some points to consider are: (i) A structure for having a stable TZ coordinator (ii) A distribution mechanism to publish the database and to host the TZ mailing list (iii) How to resolve the licensing issue The structure can be addressed by this BCP or a RFC is the appropriate stream. The distribution mechanism is about selecting a party which acts as a service provider and not one who can claim ownership over the database. The third point depends on the second one. A provider may require clear licensing guidance for obvious reasons. If the distribution mechanism is lightweight, the TZ community could try and get away with "the public-domain time zone database contains code and data that represent the history of local time for many representative locations around the globe." I suggested the RFC Editor site as a continuity of the "long-standing" practice to distribute the TZ database under the current terms. You need buy-in from people who can help make that happen. You can say that messages to the mailing list are placed in the public-domain. If you use the line quoted above for the TZ database, you might be able to get around the licensing issue. The TZ coordinator then oversees the publication of the database. Regards, -sm
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, SM wrote:
At 03:15 26-10-10, Tony Finch wrote:
I think the TZ project's "Note Well" needs to state that all contributions are in the public domain or equivalently liberal licence (e.g. Creative Commons Zero http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
It would be good if it said "public domain".
I agree, but this is not completely possible. The reason CC0 exists is because some jurisdictions do not allow people to give up all their rights in a work, so it is not sufficient to simply slap a "public domain" notice on it. The risk is that a previous contributor could succumb to the dark side and start enforcing rights against TZ users that they failed to give up properly.
The gist here is to assign rights to avoid legal conundrums.
Yes. Your adapted text on rights was on the button.
If the issues can be separated, it may make matters easier. Some points to consider are:
(i) A structure for having a stable TZ coordinator
(ii) A distribution mechanism to publish the database and to host the TZ mailing list
(iii) How to resolve the licensing issue
I think that covers it :-)
I suggested the RFC Editor site as a continuity of the "long-standing" practice to distribute the TZ database under the current terms.
The RFC editor's site concentrates on the document publishing process and the archive of published immutable documents. The TZ database is more like an IANA registry, so I think Eliot and Paul are right to suggest IANA as the new home. The IETF "Note Well" arrangement is nice since it is light-weight enough that it doesn't get in the way of contributions, while at the same time making the licensing situation clear. The only difficulty is that the licence granted by IETF contributors is not sufficient for the TZ project, so if the project were to move to the IETF it would need a special "Note Well". For example: Note Well Any submission to the TZ project intended by the Contributor for publication as part of the TZ Reference Code or TZ Database distributions and any statement made within the context of TZ project activity is considered an "TZ Contribution." Such statements include written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: * The TZ mailing list * The TZ co-ordinator * The IANA All TZ Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC wxyz. Statements made outside of the TZ mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to the TZ project, are not TZ Contributions in the context of this notice. Please consult RFC wxyz for details. A participant in the TZ project is deemed to accept all IETF rules of process, as documented in Best Current Practices RFCs and IESG Statements. I removed stuff about face-to-face meetings, but otherwise this is just s/IETF/TZ/g on the standard "Note Well". The RFC itself needs some text explaining the details. Something like: Terminology TZ Project ... TZ Database ("tzdata") ... TZ Reference Code ("tzcode") ... A TZ User is any person or organization who obtains a copy of the tzdata and/or tzcode from IANA. Terms related to licensing of rights are defined in section 1 of RFC 5378. The TZ mailing list counts as an IETF mailing list in this context. A TZ Contribution is a Contribution to the TZ Database or TZ Reference Code made via the TZ mailing list or to the TZ Coordinator. A TZ Contributor is an individual who makes a TZ Contribution. Rights in TZ Contributions The TZ project must obtain from TZ Contributors the right to publish a TZ Contribution as part of the TZ Database or the TZ Reference Code. The tzdata and tzcode have historically been public domain works owing to their being maintained by a US Government employee. A primary objective is to continue to make the tzdata and tzcode available under similarly relaxed terms to TZ Users. To this end the TZ project must obtain an equivalent grant or waiver of rights from its Contributors. It is generally agreed that it is not sufficient to simply dedicate Contributions to the public domain. While this may work in the USA there is significant doubt that it works in other jurisdictions, especially those with a strong concept of moral rights. Hence Creative Commons have retired their public domain dedication tools in favour of a more explicit waiver of rights called CC0. TZ Contributors are required to grant rights to the IETF Trust, which holds all IETF-related intellectual property on behalf of the IETF community, including the TZ project. The IETF Trust will, in turn, grant a sublicense of these rights to all TZ users. Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10 of RFC 5378 apply to TZ contributions in the same way as other IETF contributions. The rights granted by TZ Contributors to the IETF Trust and the rights granted by the IETF Trust to TZ users differ from those set out in sections 5.3 and 5.4 of RFC 5378 and the following sections apply instead. Rights Granted by TZ Contributors Contributors make their TZ Contributions available to the TZ Project and the IETF Trust under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal licence. http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Sublicenses to TZ users by the IETF Trust The IETF Trust will sublicense the rights granted to it under the previous section to all TZ users for any purpose. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.
Hi SM, On 10/24/10 11:18 AM, SM wrote:
At 06:11 21-10-10, Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] wrote:
In response to the need to find a new time zone home before I'm eligible to retire in 2012, Eliot Lear and Paul Eggert have authored the draft document "IANA Procedures for Maintaining the Timezone Database" now available from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) web site:
As the intended status of the document is BCP, I'll comment on it from that angle. In Section 1:
"Those registries are coordinated by technical experts who are designated by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
For what it's worth, some of these registries might not fall under the IESG.
In Section 2:
'This list membership will be transitioned to the IETF mail server. The TZ coordinator will continue to manage the list, in accordance with rules of governance for non-WG mailing lists (including, for example, the commonly used "Note Well" statement).'
Will the contributions fall under "Note Well" rules?
This relates to Tony's comments, and your later email. See forthcoming reply.
In Section 4:
"From time to time it will be necessary to replace a TZ Coordinator. This could occur for a number of reasons:"
I suggest "appoint" instead of "replace".
Done.
"The IESG MUST use rough consensus of the TZ mailing list as their primary guide to further action, when it exists."
As the document is a BCP, these requirement could be changed in future.
True.
In Section 5:
"No change shall be made to the license without consultation and rough consensus of the community."
The document uses "rough consensus" instead of consensus". The barrier is lower for the former. The above text mentioned "community". Is that the TZ community?
Changed. Rough consensus is not sufficient to change license terms on these licenses.
In Section 6:
"It is the understanding of the IESG, ISOC, and IANA that the database itself is public domain."
I suggest replacing "IESG" with "IETF" as the IESG operates within the IETF.
Ok.
"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database, the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."
I suggest putting code distribution under the IETF so that the legal aspect falls under the IETF Trust. The following sentence could then be removed:
"Should claims be made and substantiated against the database, the IANA will act in accordance with all competent court orders."
I do not believe people wish to change the terms of distribution in this process.
I suggest removing "further" from the following sentence:
"No further ownership claims will be made by IANA, the IETF Trust, or ISOC on the database."
Done.
In Section 7:
"The IANA will see that the role of TZ Coordinator is filled, based on the procedures described above."
Changed to "The IANA will assist the IESG, as required,..."
According to Section 4, it is the IESG that does that.
There is a MoU between IANA and the IETF for IETF protocols. There has been various interpretations of that MoU. An alternative to avoid non-technical concerns is to place the distribution of the database under the RFC Editor and explore having the material with a status similar to the Independent Submission Stream. I am not suggesting a license change. The following text is an adaption from RFC 4846:
To the extent that a TZ Contribution or any portion thereof is protected by copyright and other rights of authorship, the Contributor, and each named co-Contributor, and the organization he or she represents or is sponsored by (if any) grant an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the IETF Trust and the IETF under all intellectual property rights in the TZ Contribution in perpetuity, to copy, publish, display, and distribute the TZ Contribution.
The Contributor, each named co-Contributor, and the organizations represented above irrevocably and in perpetuity grant the rights listed below to the Internet Community:
A. to prepare or allow the preparation of translations of the TZ database into languages other than English,
B to prepare derivative works (other than translations) that are based on or incorporate all or part of the TZ Contribution, or comment upon it. The license to such derivative works shall not grant the IETF Trust, the IETF, or other party preparing a derivative work any more rights than the license to the original TZ Contribution, and
C. to reproduce any trademarks, service marks, or trade names that are included in the TZ Contribution solely in connection with the reproduction, distribution, or publication of the TZ Contribution and derivative works.
Added. Eliot
Hi Eliot, At 06:32 16-12-10, Eliot Lear wrote:
I do not believe people wish to change the terms of distribution in this process.
The status of the data managed under the IANA Function is unclear. The informal way the database has been, and is currently, maintained has contributed to its success. Formalizing the process without the necessary paperwork leaves the door open to ownership issues. BCPs are only effective within the IETF. Regards, -sm
SM, On 12/20/10 11:53 AM, SM wrote:
The status of the data managed under the IANA Function is unclear. The informal way the database has been, and is currently, maintained has contributed to its success. Formalizing the process without the necessary paperwork leaves the door open to ownership issues. BCPs are only effective within the IETF.
As you will read in the current version, we were very clear, thanks to advice from Marshall. Eliot
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 04:02, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
As you will read in the current version, we were very clear, thanks to advice from Marshall.
Is the current version of the draft available online? [Answer: yes.] The original email in this series gives the URL http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-00 but it appears to be dated 2010-10-18 still. [...let me try 01 at the end...] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-01 OK - that finds a draft dated 2010-12-17. Interestingly, if you change the 01 to 02 (or 99), it switches you back to the 01 version, which is the latest. Neat! Consequently, the following URL should land you on the most recent draft for the foreseeable future. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-99 -- Jonathan Leffler <jonathan.leffler@gmail.com> #include <disclaimer.h> Guardian of DBD::Informix - v2008.0513 - http://dbi.perl.org "Blessed are we who can laugh at ourselves, for we shall never cease to be amused."
participants (4)
-
Eliot Lear -
Jonathan Leffler -
SM -
Tony Finch