Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: trust assets, draft-eggert-ietf-and-trust-00.txt

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2022-10-22, at 6:47, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> As the guy who pushed the trust to set up the asset register a few
> years ago, I find the document's assertion both uncalled for and
> offensive.

is that asset register publicly accessible?

> Is there some reason neither of the authors nor anyone else
> who is interested was able to ask any of the trustees about it?

We did send a draft of this document to the Trust before submission, and Glenn provided feedback that we tried to reflect in the document. We even acknowledge that in the document.

> As far as I know, the asset register is complete other than perhaps
> one or two recent copyright licenses from authors of early RFCs.

Is it public?

> If you're wondering where the copyright or license info is for all of
> the pre-3978 RFCs, other than a handful of licenses from ISI and a few
> of the authors, there isn't any. As Joel noted, attempting to
> determine the status of early RFCs would be a hugely expensive and
> unproductive exercise in frustration. In a few cases I doubt that
> anything short of a suit in a US federal court would resolve it (look
> at RFC 20) and I hope none of us want to go there.

I thought that when the Trust was established, it was supposed to actively approach authors of pre-5378 documents, especially core Internet specifications, to get the copyrights signed over. Has that effort been abandoned?

> I am also baffled at the adversarial tone of this document, and the
> ahistorical way it ignores the Trust's unique history as an entity
> specifically set up to not be part of either ISOC or CNRI.

I'm sorry if the tone comes across as adversarial, that is not the intent. The intent is to capture the IETF community's expectations of the Trust.

Thanks,
Lars