Re: [Gendispatch] Questions about draft-thomson-gendispatch-rfc-derivatives

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

By the way, while responding to a completely different thread, I
realised that BCP125 (RFC4775) "Procedures for Protocol Extensions
and Variations" has direct relevance to this draft.

 From its Introduction:

"However, it is not always clear
whether extensions to a protocol should be made within the IETF
process, especially when they originate outside the IETF community.
This document lays down guidelines and procedures for such
extensions.
...
In addition to the IETF itself, other Standards Development
Organizations (SDOs), vendors, and technology fora may identify a
requirement for an extension to an IETF protocol.  The question
addressed by this document is how such bodies should proceed."

It directly addresses the derivative works aspect:

"6.  Intellectual Property

All IETF documents fall under the IETF's intellectual property rules,
BCP 78 [RFC3978] and BCP 79 [RFC3979], as amended.  In particular,
there are restrictions on the production of derivative works, and
there are rights that remain with the original authors.  Anybody
outside the IETF considering an extension based on an IETF document
must bear these legal restrictions and rights in mind."

Regards
    Brian

On 16-Nov-23 14:02, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Sticking with the same thread though making (I think) another point...
> 
> I wasn't at the gendispatch session, but did just read the draft.
> 
> The "rationale" section seems to boil down to:
> 
>   > Should the IETF be unable to attract adequate depth of expertise to
>   > produce a revision of existing work, another organization might have
>   > that expertise. In the most extreme case, the IETF could fail entirely
>   > or cease to be a viable venue for standardization, making it necessary
>   > to produce revisions in another venue.
> 
> I don't find that a convincing reason for the change proposed. At
> present the IETF is a viable venue, and can hand off work elsewhere
> as needed. If and when that starts happening a lot, then it might
> be time for a draft like this, but IMO not now. ISTM the policy
> proposed here would, at present, risk more damage rather than act
> as a sensible bit of hedging/future-proofing, so I think the right
> dispatch outcome ought be "thanks, but no."
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
>