Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 31 May 2015 15:26 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7571A010D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2015 08:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q2K9UIi1K3C7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 May 2015 08:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 703CA1A00F3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 May 2015 08:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Yz57y-000Nxe-61; Sun, 31 May 2015 11:26:18 -0400
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 11:26:13 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors
Message-ID: <F8B3CD89B7080169D182E45C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <556AE4DD.3000903@alvestrand.no>
References: <20150529205551.22495.73800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2F99A0C05DFEE698A643FC97@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <938E070C-A69A-4D37-9B33-3CB07E09595C@piuha.net> <5568F568.9060407@bogus.com> <5568FE28.1090600@gmail.com> <55695D53.3000004@cisco.com> <E3C9C304-EFA2-4C47-AC57-354BEDDC1984@umn.edu> <981C94AECB2DFB46F0990A84@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAKKJt-fw_AtNoAJRi62Q5yzkUyYEUXH7L+dwVy6c=xsX2ToADA@mail.gmail.com> <532882A8F7829F80DB25BB19@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <556ACBE1.3050104@cisco.com> <556AE4DD.3000903@alvestrand.no>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-yMV0-xxxqBsbOZiEWrqYLj1G6o>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 15:26:22 -0000
--On Sunday, May 31, 2015 12:39 +0200 Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: >... > Now this statement is about Internet-Drafts, not about the RFC > series or any substream thereof. > > If we figured out who is in charge of the Internet Drafts > mechanism as a whole, that body might be the right one to make > pronouncements for the whole whatever-it-is. (I don't think > we've ever called the Internet drafts a document series...) Actually we've carefully avoided that. It clearly was not the case when I-D actually expired and disappeared from IETF-maintained repositories. > I don't think we've figured out that yet. And it's a separate > topic. IIR, we actually discussed that at some length years ago, about the time we decided that all proposed RFCs except the 1 April ones should be posted as I-Ds first (long before streams were formalized) and perhaps more recently. The conclusion then was that I-Ds really were an IETF issue (otherwise we might, e.g., end up with different expiration policies for different types of documents) but that the IESG should exercise good sense and not try to make policies that would unreasonably constrain non-IETF documents. It was clear at the time that the RFC Editor could make other policies and create other draft posting mechanisms if they were needed (and, indeed, April 1st remains a case of that) but that it would be an inefficiency to be avoided if needed. We've more or less revisited the topic with IPR policies: there are per-stream rules for RFCs but, in principle, the same rules for all I-Ds. However, the IESG has, again IIR, decided that I-Ds with highly restricted copyright statements will not be processed on the standards track and perhaps not in the IETF stream at all (don't remember). So I'd suggest that we have discussed the issue. The discussions have been completely consistent with your conclusions: it is a separate issue and we don't make pronouncements for the series as a whole without very strong justification and then we try to keep those pronouncements narrow and flexible. I would welcome having the other streams make statements of agreement in principle about whatever the IESG has to say about the IETF stream if the leadership/management of those streams thought that appropriate. I'd certain think it would be ok for the other streams, the RFC Editor, the IETF Trust, and ISOC to affirm the principle that lying or misrepresenting authorship, support, or anything else is never appropriate, although it would sadden me if we really concluded that was necessary rather than obvious. However, I don't see it as help for the IESG to tell non-IETF entities what to do. john
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Toerless Eckert
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Jari Arkko
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors joel jaeggli
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Benoit Claise
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Carsten Bormann
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Benoit Claise
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Harald Alvestrand
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors David Farmer
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Harald Alvestrand
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Eliot Lear
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John Levine
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Melinda Shore
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Melinda Shore
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John C Klensin
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Randy Bush
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John Levine
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Ted Lemon
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John R Levine
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors S Moonesamy
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Larry Kreeger (kreeger)
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Joe Abley
- RE: IESG Statement on surprised authors Tony Hain
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Ted Lemon
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors John Levine
- RE: IESG Statement on surprised authors Tony Hain
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Warren Kumari
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Ted Lemon
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Warren Kumari
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Stewart Bryant
- Re: IESG Statement on surprised authors Loa Andersson
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… John Levine
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… Ted Lemon
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… Warren Kumari
- Re: proposed surprise hack, was IESG Statement on… John R Levine