Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-02.txt

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Simon Josefsson wrote:
 
   [URLs can be moving targets and don't necessarily]
>>> preserve the appeal paths.

>> The document could state that they should preserve it.
 
> I don't see how.  The current appeal path is conflated with documents,
> a IETF last call and an IESG evaluation.  I'm not sure the current
> appeal paths would apply to changes in legal text crafted by the IASA
> and only published on their web pages.

In addition to Brian's comments, another example are the IONs defined
in RFC 4693, and RFC 4693 simply says:

| A decision by any other body than the IESG to approve an ION can be
| appealed to the IESG, in which case the IESG can nullify the approval.
| A decision of the IESG can be appealed using the common IETF appeals
| procedure, except that an IESG decision to nullify an IAB decision to
| approve an ION cannot be appealed to the IAB.

The idea of I-D.ietf-ipr-outbound-rights is that the IAOC or IASA (*1)
define the legalese, and update it when necessary.  The idea of the ION
experiment is to collect documents which are frequently updated.  

With that I'd think that the legalese could be published as ION, maybe
not yet because it's still an experiment, but later.  And for IONs we
have an appeal procedure.  The "outbound" I-D could copy the text from
RFC 4693 (mutatis mutandis).

> There are no requirements to have notification of changes in the legal
> text sent to, e.g., the ietf-announce mailing list.

Let the I-D copy Harald's text in RFC 4693, that should be good enough.

Frank

*1:  At some point in time I'll learn what the difference between IAOC
     and IASA is.  Documents mentioning these beasts should provide a
     proper reference with acronym expansion on first usage.



_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg