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.