Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

Stephan Wenger <> Mon, 04 April 2016 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5597912D1E5 for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hUTYHeEwHZVM for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD5FF12D0CA for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.447.15; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:14:12 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0447.027; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:14:12 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <>, Jari Arkko <>
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Thread-Topic: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Thread-Index: AQHRhDTbKR9yu1RueEWA9RrAiHSISp951PgA///YEwA=
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:14:11 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [2001:67c:370:176:ac9a:9cf5:6d8b:e22c]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 57592136-7626-4834-6556-08d35c8b03ae
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR17MB0274; 5:/aQHQeDedQZBzTvS72OYXUew/D9jvw1v4s0BA5qnTtauf7+I31D0IAVlx/Tb+wlyPkCHjNbXyGz+voo/rSUGC2EG+J4Qb+C67xoLcpDqYehv6huo+txHumxWMN4zkCnO7VseECcgOUEs6H8xBGSZ8Q==; 24:w7mVqbzr6mMvo+KRuQG2Qhh8Qxepfxhvt7BRkJuAkxj0GqJ5Q9K7k7JEZnhA2YXH2YbZE1t2sL08z/T78zsM6XmR/Agx1O6ZL/CZbCGII2o=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR17MB0274;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040046)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041046)(6043046); SRVR:BLUPR17MB0274; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR17MB0274;
x-forefront-prvs: 0902222726
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(5004730100002)(82746002)(33656002)(5001770100001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(83716003)(3660700001)(106116001)(86362001)(230783001)(5002640100001)(122556002)(189998001)(36756003)(2900100001)(76176999)(2950100001)(54356999)(4326007)(50986999)(2906002)(3280700002)(5008740100001)(10400500002)(81166005)(92566002)(1096002)(11100500001)(6116002)(77096005)(102836003)(586003)(87936001)(1220700001)(3826002)(42262002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR17MB0274;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Apr 2016 13:14:11.8685 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 865fc51c-5fae-4322-98ef-0121a85df0b6
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR17MB0274
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:14:22 -0000

Hi Lars,
Reading trough this, I think it may be worthwhile that the IRTF creates an RFC that includes an applicability statement of BCP79 to IRTF activities, instead of trying to include the IRSG and its terminology into this already confusing document.
(minor point: I prefer to keep the definitions in alphabetic order: jumping around on an initial read is a small burden compared to the difficulty of finding a definition in an unordered list when reading deep-down details.)

On 4/4/16, 09:37, "ietf on behalf of Eggert, Lars" < on behalf of> wrote:

>I mostly ready this from the perspective of the IRTF, since this is intended to also apply to us. I found that that wasn't terribly clear from the current text.
>Section 1., paragraph 0:
>> 1. Definitions
>  Sorting these definitions alphabetically is not really helpful to the
>  reader. Could you order them such that terms are defined before being
>  referred to, or at least try?
>Section 1., paragraph 3:
>>    b. "Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the
>>       Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or
>>       RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity,
>>       in each case that is intended to affect the IETF Standards Process
>>       or that is related to the activity of an Alternate Stream that has
>>       adopted this definition.
> What do you mean by "this definition"? Also, it's not clear what
> "activity of an Alternate Stream" is supposed to convey. I think this
> intends to capture work occurring in IRTF RGs, but it's a pretty
> indirect way of stating this.
>Section 1., paragraph 4:
>>       Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and
>>       electronic communications, which are addressed to:
>  The list below does not include IRTF mailing lists or meetings.
>Section 1., paragraph 9:
>>    e. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all
>>       individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing
>>       lists, functions and other activities which are organized or
>>       initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general
>>       designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but
>>       solely to the extent of such participation.
>  For clarity, I would also call out the IRTF and its RGs here.
>Section 1., paragraph 10:
>>    f. "IETF Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are published as
>>       part of the IETF Standards Process.  These are also referred to as
>>       "IETF Stream Documents" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4844.
>  What about RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are intended as contributions
>  to IRTF activities? It would be useful to maybe add "...part of the
>  IETF Standards Process and related activities" to make this clearer.
>Section 1., paragraph 11:
>>    g. "IETF Standards Process": the activities undertaken by the IETF in
>>       any of the settings described in the above definition of
>>       Contribution.  The IETF Standards Process may include
>>       participation in activities and publication of documents that are
>>       not directed toward the development of IETF standards or
>>       specifications, such as the development and publication of
>>       informational documents.
>  I'd again explicitly call out the alternate streams here. And maybe
>  this document is meant for lawyers and I am not one, but having a
>  definition called "IETF Standards Process" that also includes all of
>  our non-standard-setting activities is confusing.
>Section 1., paragraph 17:
>>    m. "RFC": the basic publication series for the IETF.  RFCs are
>>       published by the RFC Editor and once published are never modified.
>>       (See [RFC2026] Section 2.1)
>  Might want to mention the existence of errata.
>Section 5.5., paragraph 0:
>> 5.5. Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure
>  It's been running code on the IRTF side to be very OK with not having
>  license terms included, esp. if it significantly delays the official
>  filing of the disclosure, since RGs don't set standards and therefore
>  don't really need to consider licensing terms. Not clear if that
>  should be discussed here.
>Section 11., paragraph 2:
>>    The legal rules that apply to documents in Alternate Streams are
>>    established by the managers of those Alternate Streams as defined in
>>    [RFC 4844]. (i.e., the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet
>>    Research Steering Group (IRSG) and Independent Submission Editor).
>  Is the IRSG really the manager of the IRTF stream? I thought it was
>  the IRTF chair, but I can't find the definitive answer in either 4844,
>  5742 or 5743...