![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
You asked me to make this comment publicly, so here it is.In my opinion, we need a 5378-bis that keeps the good bits but corrects the issue that has been problematic. The question before the house is how best to achieve that. The proposal here is to provide a work-around that enables an internet draft author to state that s/he has not verified the transferability of his/her text, which will work until an appropriate 5378-bis can be produced. This means that the tools people have to produce and accept the work-around and later on change the tools to accept 5378-bis, and it places a burden on authors to make that statement.
From my perspective, the best approach involves keeping the general case simple. The documents that have been transferred outside the IETF in the past five years is a single digit number, a tenth of a percent of all RFCs if not a smaller fraction. From my perspective, the simplest solution to the transfer issue is to ask the people relevant to a document for which transfer has been suggested whether they have an issue with transferring it, rather than asking every document author his or her opinion on the vast majority of documents, which will never be transferred. Remember that this boilerplate affects internet drafts, but most internet drafts are discussion documents - a fraction of internet drafts even become RFCs, and a small fraction of RFCs are transferred elsewhere.
As to the other issues that 5378 addresses, I suspect that a better approach will be to fall back to 3978/4748/2026 temporarily and move to 5378-bis when it comes rather than to use this very general workaround to 5378's issues until 5378-bis is resolved. 3978 etc worked just fine for most purposes...
On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Ed Juskevicius wrote:
The purpose of this message is twofold: 1) To summarize the issues that some members of our community have experienced since the publication of RFC 5378 in November 2008, and2) To invite community review and discussion on a potential work- aroundbeing considered by the IETF Trustees. Some I-D authors are having difficulty implementing RFC 5378. An example of the difficulty is as follows: - an author wants to include pre-5378 content in a new submission or contribution to the IETF, but - s/he is not certain that all of the author(s) of the earlier material have agreed to license it to the IETF Trust according to RFC 5378.If an I-D author includes pre-5378 material in a new document, then s/hemust represent or warrant that all of the authors who created thepre-5378 material have granted rights for that material to the IETF Trust.If s/he cannot make this assertion, then s/he has a problem. This situation has halted the progression of some Internet-Drafts andinterrupted the publication of some RFCs. The Trustees of the IETF Trust are investigating ways to implement a temporary work-around so that IETFwork can continue to progress. A permanent solution to this "pre-5378problem" may require an update to RFC 5378, for example new work by thecommunity to create a 5378-bis document.The remainder of this message provides an outline of the temporary work-around being considered by the Trustees. RFC 5378 sections 1.j and 5.3.c provide the IETF Trust with theauthority to develop legend text for authors to use in situations wherethey wish to limit the granting of rights to modify and prepare derivatives of the documents they submit. The Trustees used this authority in 2008 to develop and adopt the current "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents" which are posted at: http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.The Trustees are now considering the creation of optional new legend textwhich could be used by authors experiencing the "pre-5378 problem". The new legend text, if implemented, would do the following: a. Provide Authors and Contributors with a way to identify (to theIETF Trust) that their contributions contain material from pre-5378documents for which RFC 5378 rights to modify the material outside the IETF standards process may not have been granted, and b. Provide the IETF Trust and the community with a clear indication of every document containing pre-5378 content and having the "pre-5378 problem". So, how could the creation and use of some new legend text help people work-around the pre-5378 problem? The proposed answer is as follows:1. Anyone having a contribution with the "pre-5378" problem should add new legend text to the contribution, to clearly flag that it includes pre-5378 material for which all of the rights needed under RFC 5378may not have been granted, and 2. The IETF Trust will consider authors and contributors (with the pre-5378 problem) to have met their RFC 5378 obligations if the new legend text appears on their documents, and 3. Authors and contributors should only resort to adding the new legend text to their documents (per #1) if they cannot develop certainty that all of the author(s) of pre-5378 material in their documents have agreed to license the pre-5378 content to the IETF Trust according to RFC 5378. The proposed wording for the new legend text is now available for your review and comments in section 6.c.iii of a draft revision to the IETF Trust's "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents" located at http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html.Please note that the above document also contains new text in section 5.cdealing with "License Limitations". If your review and feedback on this proposed work-around is positive,then the new text may be adopted by the Trustees in early February 2009,and then be published as an official revision to the Legal Provisions document. If so adopted, Internet-Drafts with pre-5378 material mayadvance within the Internet standards process and get published as RFCs where otherwise qualified to do so. Unless covered by sections 6.c.i or6.c.ii, authors of documents in which there is no pre-5378 material must provide a RFC 5378 license with no limitation on modifications outside the IETF standards process.The IETF Trust will not grant the right to modify or prepare derivativeworks of any specific RFC or other IETF Contribution outside the IETFstandards process until RFC 5378 rights pertaining to that document havebeen obtained from all authors and after compliance by the IETF Trust with RFC 5377. The Trustees will establish one or more mechanisms by which authors of pre-5378 documents may grant RFC 5378 rights.The Trustees hereby invite your review, comments and suggestions on this proposed work-around to the "pre-5378 problem". The period for this review is 30 days. Microsoft WORD and PDF versions of the proposed revisions areattached to this message. Copies are also available on the IETF Trustwebsite under the heading "DRAFT Policy and Procedures Being Developed" at:http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.htmlAll feedback submitted before the end of February 7th will be considered by the Trustees. A decision on whether to move forward with this proposal willbe made and communicated to you before the end of February 15th. Please give this your attention. Regards and Happy New Year ! Ed Juskevicius, on behalf of the IETF Trustees edj.etc at gmail.com<Draft-Update-to-IETF-Trust-Legal-Provisions-1-06-09.DOC><Draft- Update-to-IETF-Trust-Legal- Provisions-1-06-09.pdf>_______________________________________________Trustees mailing list Trustees at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.