IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: legal consultation (was List moderator action)

Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Fri, 08 May 2026 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6564AEB498DD for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2026 09:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1778256818; bh=hud7y+rF9Su486a6cJZPjlgJF4/wvmA6v8Z+Mz2wWkU=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=pe6DDLB/3sIdfd/X612UZB2DvoWhv0PX5LSklhuT+2YP0U6Uh68koXbkfCl3ctPC5 dhuuZJGFSZ5jPowweaE74w7BNRC6sRylxmL34UludCp5fekFTLyBq4Dw59dxGlhTXS 7xGj8bEj8nHzbkLukoiFKaAF7BgKRJdjC5xk3B98=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sobco.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KjmbCZmS-SHW for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2026 09:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (sobco.sobco.com [199.204.155.45]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86E26EB498CC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2026 09:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (golem.sobco.com [199.204.155.34]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F3338461AA95; Fri, 8 May 2026 12:13:26 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=sobco.com; s=mail; t=1778256807; bh=iUk3DRT+l6/5JpI+/Jh6CgdQRUY=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=v7ZfdCz8/TN3Dhyr0Rheyi8sO9hMZah2JFgtRnbReiCV0bVQXzzQNdNjYW2YHP+V8 zJ2UqqOt2cRgJztjQvQued/DxItvYRhg9Uku2Fr+hjVC1pbe9Fl7ni2W+p5K140nYz 4BuLkY67OETXpW1goAm5e6x7IrGyfdkRUcMuApTNwDKlfnirLKgYG71zvyf6UP00rB fx634hDJz8QusDJjiCdSoCw9u76vznnTRX+3aOuorVaos87Xc3fwVvIV4MyT4NzGJX uy4kVOP4Xw35xHgigT/yDFf48qUpxsOk39T5rwBDqjOAj7QNsKQjK5ECjlq5f7hO8S UWecIlZAbgAng==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.500.181\))
Subject: Re: legal consultation (was List moderator action)
From: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SynwXB6nsU8dpjmFDbFxDaHL6TgevAsRYXJtS7cbCURxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2026 12:13:16 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <67864CE5-6504-453E-B6F6-3B9C5C1C155D@sobco.com>
References: <CAChr6SynwXB6nsU8dpjmFDbFxDaHL6TgevAsRYXJtS7cbCURxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.500.181)
Message-ID-Hash: YEFLJEOOOWNADRIJTWUYADX6R45JEILN
X-Message-ID-Hash: YEFLJEOOOWNADRIJTWUYADX6R45JEILN
X-MailFrom: sob@sobco.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/49mrH7pdFjV7-Jf-7Sn6kwkNPmE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-leave@ietf.org>

if the number of published RFCs with the no derivative works language in 
them is so small why are we even thinking about making any changes?
There does not seem to be a problem in that area to solve

the trial ballon case is, to me, more interesting and I'd like to keep that tool 

Scott

> On May 8, 2026, at 11:58 AM, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>:
> > We publish lots of RFCs, a very tiny fraction of them use the no derivatives clause. 
> 
> I think the interesting case, which I want to preserve, is Internet-Drafts. I agree the RFCs are kind of a sideshow. As RFC 5378 puts it:
> 
> "Occasionally a Contributor may not want to grant publication rights or the
> right to produce derivative works before finding out if a Contribution has
> been accepted for development in the IETF Standards Process."
> 
> thanks,
> Rob S

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status