Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification for draft-thomson-gendispatch-rfc-derivatives-00.txt

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 8:34 AM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

> If you don't mind me responding to this message:
> On 28.09.2023 17:00, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> First, let me say that  I agree that it's not desirable to have multiple
> competing versions
> of a different protocol, so I think on that we are on the same page. Where
> I think we
> may disagree is on whether permitting people to use the text in IETF RFCs
> in
> their own specifications has a meaningful impact on whether that happens.
>
> There have *at least* been three institutions in particular where we
> actually had to remind them that they couldn't modify our work and then
> republish it.  You mentioned ETSI.
>
If you are referring to eTS, I do not believe that this is what happened,
as I said, ETSI was not using the TLS spec, but rather was effectively
publishing an extension draft.

-Ekr



>   It also happened at ISO once and at the ITU several times.  Them doing
> so would put implementors in a real bind because different jurisdictions
> have different regulatory requirements as to which standard set to follow.
> This is about to get more complicated with CRA in Europe over the next few
> years.
>
> This is why I think we need to take things one step at a time, and even
> taking a step where we have an approval process would require at least some
> consideration.
>
>
> It might be useful to start by putting the question of text aside. Suppose
> that
> I think that the IETF is taking protocol XYZ in the wrong direction. Under
> the current
> IPR rules, I don't think anything precludes me from:
>
> 1. Writing a new document that is wire compatible with XYZ but doesn't use
> the
> words from the IETF specification.
> 2. Calling that protocol "XYZ" in the document.
> 3. Calling that specification an "RFC" and in fact using the same number
> as the
> IETF specification.
> 4. Publishing the specification on my site.
>
> It's not just the IETF that has to worry about this, but it is a
> series-wide issue.  Mostly it's a non-issue, because I've never seen anyone
> actually do what you suggested.  And what you are talking about is more a
> trademark matter, rightWhat I *have* seen is a member of another body
> take parts of our work, and want it to become Recommendation ITU-T
> X.somethingorother.
>
> Regarding your comments about IANA, I largely agree with your analysis,
> except that I think the license can enforce our IANA policy.
>
> All of this having been said, I do think it would be fine for the Trust to
> have a process for how to release documents for derivative uses, so long as
> there is some sort of manual check.  I had one document stuck in the
> independent queue precisely because we ran into IPR... on an OLD RFC!!!!
> And everyone was trying to do the right thing.  So again, let's keep this
> discussion going.
>
> Eliot
>
>
>