Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

[Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> While not really disagreeing with Leslie and Olaf, I would
> point out that the IPR WG was chartered to look at
> IETF documents.

Those being ietf-stream exclusively or implicitly also covering the  
iab-stream?

Personally, I think it makes sense that the iab-stream is covered, but  
let me put that in front of the IAB too.

> We can have a meta-discussion about
> where the clarifications belong, but it seems to me
> that the WG consensus definitely assumed that scope
> and no wider scope. I'd be happy if that was made
> clear in the drafts, rather than trying to cover
> the other documents streams by some kind of awkward
> retro-fit.


My suggestion is to rewrite  section 4 a bit to call out that this  
document does not cover the incoming rights for the independent and  
irtf stream and to use the terms "ietf-stream" and possibly "iab- 
stream" in the definitions.

Such a rewrite would preserve the status quo for the independent and  
irtf stream.


no-hats,

--Olaf


<no further comments below>

On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> While not really disagreeing with Leslie and Olaf, I would
> point out that the IPR WG was chartered to look at
> IETF documents. We can have a meta-discussion about
> where the clarifications belong, but it seems to me
> that the WG consensus definitely assumed that scope
> and no wider scope. I'd be happy if that was made
> clear in the drafts, rather than trying to cover
> the other documents streams by some kind of awkward
> retro-fit.
>
>   Brian
>
> On 2008-03-28 08:15, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>>
>> --On March 27, 2008 10:33:24 AM +0100 Olaf Kolkman  
>> <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>> I would think that the document would gain in clarity if it  
>>> explicitly
>>> ties the incoming rights to the streams as defined in RFC4844 and  
>>> also
>>> explicitly calls out that if new streams would be defined those  
>>> should
>>> specifically define if and how rights are transferred to the IETF  
>>> Trust.
>>
>> I would have to agree with the above, and say further that the
>> the IAB should make sure that the entities responsible for
>> the non-IETF streams are okay with the result.
>>
>> When writing the streams definitions, it was clear that there was a
>> lot of material that was spread across existing documents without
>> clear delineation between "IETF" or "non-IETF" documents, let
>> alone further refinement into what has become "streams".  THat's
>> understandable, historically, but we should be clearer going
>> forward.  Breaking it out, as you suggest, would be consistent
>> with that goal.
>>
>> Leslie.
>>
>>>
>>> While reviewing the documents I tried to determine how the 4 streams
>>> currently defined in RFC4844 fit into the framework.
>>>
>>> Although the stream is not specifically mentioned it is clear that  
>>> the
>>> incoming rights document applies to the IETF Stream.
>>>
>>> To me it is clear that a contribution to the IAB is explicitly  
>>> bound by
>>> the rules (including the No Duty to Publish rule, that allows for
>>> confidential information to be supplied to the IAB), so are  
>>> contributions
>>> from the IAB, i.e. IAB stream document. I conclude this from the  
>>> fact
>>> that "IAB" is part of the IETF under the definition in 1.e.  
>>> However, I
>>> may be over-interpreting, and the status of the incoming rights  
>>> for the
>>> IAB stream is also not captured.
>>>
>>> The independent stream document are clearly excluded by section 4  
>>> of the
>>> document.
>>>
>>> It is not quite clear where the IRTF stream document live. This  
>>> could be
>>> fixed in a document which defines the IRTF stream.
>>>
>>> I would think that the document would gain in clarity if it  
>>> explicitly
>>> ties the incoming rights to the streams as defined in RFC4844 and  
>>> also
>>> explicitly calls out that if new streams would be defined those  
>>> should
>>> specifically define if and how rights are transfered to the IETF  
>>> Trust.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --Olaf (no hats)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf