Re: Stream differences (Was: legal consultation)

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

On 08-May-26 07:49, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 7 May 2026, at 19:58, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 07-May-26 19:16, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>
>> The IETF cannot remove the option globally. The IETF can only remove it
>> for the IETF stream. The other streams can make their own decisions.
>>
>>> With your proposal, the complexity is increased, and coupling different
>>> streams to different set of legal terms.
>>
>> That is already the case. Each stream is different.
>>
>>> It also begs the question how
>>> to deal with a single document switches back and forth between streams,
>>> or handling contributions received for each situation.  If we really
>>> don't want to go down into that complexity rabbit hole, I suggest to
>>> avoid it.
>>
>> We are already there, and have been since the separate streams were
>> properly defined. For the IETF it would get simpler, for the other
>> streams nothing would change.
> 
> Hmm, not quite.  All of the streams explicitly adopt RFC 5378 or BCP 78
> 
> Three reference RFC 5378:
> - IRTF stream in Section 3 of RFC 5743
> - Independent stream in Section 4 of RFC 5744
> - IAB stream in Section in Section 4 of RFC 5745
> 
> With this same language:
> 
>> During Internet-Draft submission, authors who intend to submit their
>> document for publication in the XXX stream will grant rights as
>> described in [RFC5378]. To request that the contribution be
>> published as an RFC that permits no derivative works, an author may
>> use the form specified for use with RFC 5378.
> 
> 
> One references BCP 78
> - Editorial stream in Section 3.2.2 of RFC 9920
> 
> So obsoleting either RFC 5378 or just the derivatives clauses has an immediate knock-on effect that has to be resolved, with the current status quo being that the streams are aligned,

Good catch, but that could be fixed by careful wording.

      Brian