Re: 5378 Procedures Fix

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

Ray,

Firstly, yes, that is a valid point to discuss: do we want to require
a reasonable effort from authors, or do we want the disclaimer to be
used by default? Let's have that discussion in the BOF.

Secondly, I have running code to report. In draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work
we use substantial material from draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-05,
published in 2006. I went through the process of sending email to its
authors, asking for their agreement to post the material under RFC5378
conditions, and they all replied positively within a few days. The effort
was trivial, compared to the other work to produce the draft. So I assert
that a reasonable effort is in fact... reasonable, and avoids the distraction
caused by the disclaimer.

   Brian

On 2009-03-12 10:22, Ray Pelletier wrote:
> Brian & Harald
> 
> I have heartburn with the proposed 'fix' to the pre-5378 problem.  It
> has to to with the level of effort
> by Contributors and record keeping required to implement the fix.
> 
> 2.  Procedure
> 
>    Definition: In this document, the phrase "prior to RFC 5378" refers
>    to IETF Contributions made before November 10, 2008, when [RFC5378]
>    became effective.
> 
>    Contributors of Internet-Drafts that contain substantial text
>    originally contributed to the IETF by other persons prior to RFC 5378
>    have certain responsibilities.
> 
>    o  They must identify the source of the substantial text that their
>       contribution includes.
> 
> I agree with this.  The Trust cannot grant the license to a 3rd party
> without being able to identify the
> 5378 licensors and the Contributors are in the best position to identify
> the sources.
> 
>    o  They, or people helping them, must make reasonable efforts to
>       obtain or verify the agreement of the original contributors to
>       their text being contributed under the terms of RFC 5378.
> 
> I disagree with this.  Of the last 5,000 plus RFCs I understand there
> have been fewer than 5 occasions
> when the IETF has provided the right to modify an RFC outside the IETF
> standards process.  I would shift the
> burden to the Trust to 'make reasonable efforts to obtain or verify the
> agreement of the original contributors to
> their text being contributed under the terms of RFC 5378', rather than
> have the Contributors do it, on an as-needed basis.
> If the Contributors have to do it, it will result in hard or soft copy
> licenses to be provided to the Trust on a document by document basis
> or the Trust will wind up soliciting broadly for licenses, perhaps even
> setting up an online 5378 License Registry for
> the 11,000 plus authors, and/or n # of companies of the 5,000 RFCs. 
> Whether the Contributors do it and or the Trust, it is
> way too much effort to meet the requirement for an occasional request.
> 
>    o  If such agreement cannot be obtained within a reasonable time,
>       they must instead include a special disclaimer in the Internet-
>       Draft.  The current text of the disclaimer will be specified by
>       the IETF Trust's "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents",
>       originally located at
>       <http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html>.  The initial
>       version of this text is in Appendix A below.
> 
> The Contributor should just include the provision as a matter of course,
> unless they meet exceptions
> defined in the "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents".
> 
>    o  In either case, the Internet-Draft must contain acknowledgement
>       and precise citation of the contributions concerned.  If the
>       disclaimer is included, the acknowledgement should also identify
>       which previous contributors contributed which text, unless the
>       text concerned is scattered throughout the document.
> 
> Concur.
> 
>    Before approving a document containing material originally
>    contributed to the IETF prior to RFC 5378, for which permission to
>    contribute it under RFC 5378 has not been obtained, the IESG must be
>    satisfied that reasonable effort has been made to obtain the
>    necessary rights.
> 
> I would delete as unnecessary if changed as suggested.
> 
> If such is the case, the resulting document, and
>    any IETF Last Call message concerning the document, must contain the
>    special disclaimer and acknowledgement defined above.
> 
> The IESG should ensure the pre-5378 material has been properly identified
> and that the document contains the 'special disclaimer and acknowledgement
> defined above'.
> 
> 
>    The IESG and the IETF Trust, in collaboration, must provide a public
>    register of documents prior to RFC 5378 for which the rights required
>    by RFC 5378 have been provided retroactively, and a public register
>    of rights holders who have retroactively provided such rights for all
>    their IETF contributions prior to RFC 5378.
> 
> Clearly the 5378 rights as and when requested by the IETF Trust and granted
> by the authors must be publicly disclosed.
> 
>    The IETF Trust is requested to ensure that its policies and licenses
>    allow for documents including the disclaimer.
> 
> Concur
> 
> Ray Pelletier
> Taking off my Trustee and IAD hats.
> 
> 
> 
>