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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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.  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