Re: [Glenn Randers-Pehrson ARL-WTD: deflate, zlib, gzip drafts]

Glenn Randers-Pehrson ARL-WTD-TED-TIB <glennrp@arl.mil> Thu, 21 March 1996 13:34 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13671; 21 Mar 96 8:34 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13667; 21 Mar 96 8:34 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05947; 21 Mar 96 8:34 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13658; 21 Mar 96 8:34 EST
Received: from thor.arl.mil by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13653; 21 Mar 96 8:34 EST
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 08:33:14 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson ARL-WTD-TED-TIB <glennrp@arl.mil>
To: iesg@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
cc: Glenn Randers-Pehrson ARL-WTD-TED-TIB <glennrp@arl.mil>, rfc-editor@isi.edu, madler@alumni.caltech.edu, Jean-Loup Gailly <gzip@prep.ai.mit.edu>, "L. Peter Deutsch" <ghost@aladdin.com>, Klensin@mci.net, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Subject: Re: [Glenn Randers-Pehrson ARL-WTD: deflate, zlib, gzip drafts]
Organization: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, APG, MD
Message-ID: <9603210833.aa15873@THOR.ARL.MIL>

In reply to the message
 > From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
 > Subject: Re: [Glenn Randers-Pehrson ARL-WTD: deflate, zlib, gzip drafts]
 > Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 08:20:04 +0100
 > The IESG discussed the drafts just before the IETF.
 > The only problem we found was the large copyright notice in front,
 > which we were unsure if conflicted with the current text of RFC 1602
 > with regards to copyright.
 > 
 > Consensus opinion seemed to be that it wasn't a real problem, but
 > that it would be even less of a problem once the revised 1602 was
 > ratified, but that we would think about it until the next IESG meeting.
 > 
 > I hope that they're out of the IESG queue at our next meeting.
 > Please address further mail about this matter to iesg@ietf.org or
 > iesg@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us, since that is the forum that currently
 > has the drafts on its table.
 > 
 >              Harald T. Alvestrand

Thank you, Harald, for the status report.

The copyright is there to protect the *internet-draft* and possibly the
*Informational RFC*.  The authors disussed RFC1602 before submitting
the first ID's on Feb 12, and agree to the provisions of paragraph
5.4.1, granting the ISOC a perpetual, royalty-free, world-wide license
under the copyright..

We prefer to follow the Informational RFC route, and from our reading
of RFC 1602 the copyright notice can stay as written.

If the IESG were to direct us to pursue the Standards Track, then we
would comply with the provisions of paragraphs 5.4.2, 5.5, and 5.6,
transferring the copyright to ISOC.  This requirement would not seem
to be changed in the proposed revision of RFC1602 (Internet Draft
draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-04.txt, paragraph 10.4.A)

Our documents don't seem to be controversial.  We have only received
one comment, requesting a clarification of a snippet of C code in the
deflate document.  We have taken care of that and the revised C code
will appear in draft-03, along with some minor cleanup of the PostScript.

../glennrp