Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewand comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Fri, 09 January 2009 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE58628C170; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:17:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6246F28C165; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:17:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.037
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.562, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YDQzNcmqB3u0; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:17:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7BD3A6358; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:17:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n09FF1fS022479; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:15:02 -0700
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id n09FGQtS223246; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:16:28 -0700
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n09FGP1H016292; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:16:25 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-234-4.mts.ibm.com [9.65.234.4]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n09FGLWm015925 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:16:24 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id n09FGJsI023601; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:16:20 -0500
Message-Id: <200901091516.n09FGJsI023601@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your reviewand comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
In-reply-to: <6.0.0.20.2.20090109143653.05e3ebd8@localhost>
References: <70873A2B7F744826B0507D4B84903E60@noisy> <FB8A848E-E415-4CDE-9E3F-5C74A5614F18@cisco.com> <F857DDBB-CDEE-48A8-B59C-56AEDA65CE79@cs.tcd.ie> <4966CEF3.8080506@gmail.com> <6.0.0.20.2.20090109143653.05e3ebd8@localhost>
Comments: In-reply-to Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> message dated "Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:42:20 +0900."
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:16:19 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Trustees <trustees@ietf.org>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> writes:

> WHO exactly are we supposed to get permissions from.

> The situation of a deceased author is a tought one, but it's an
> obvious one. But I haven't seen any clear answer to whether
> permission from all the authors/editors (the people listed in
> the front of the document) is sufficient, whether we have to
> ask everybody above a certain percentage of email contributions
> in the WG, everybody who's mentioned in the Acks section, or
> what. It's a significant nuissance for everybody to go around
> and beg people (maybe including for their former employer)
> to confirm something they probably couldn't care less, even if
> they otherwise think the IETF does great stuff and everything.
> So it would really be good to know who exactly has to be
> bothered, and who not.

IANAL, but if you are expecting anyone (like the IETF) to give a clear
final, legally defensible answer to "who do you need permission from",
you won't get it. That is the nature of legal questions and is what
makes this entire discussion so difficult. And why what is an
accptable risk for you may not be an acceptable risk for me or someone
else.

To answer the question, you have to look at who bears the risk if they
make an assertion (i.e, by claiming that all contributers have signed
off) that someone later challenges. And what the potential
consequences would be.

How likely is such a challenge? (the answer is almost always "it
depends").

What is the likelyhood of a challenge having merit? (answer is "it
depends").

What is the cost (time/money/aggrevation) of having to deal with such
a situation? ("it depends" -- see the pattern?)

While you (personally) may think the risk is negligble and silly, does
your employer (who also probably bears some risk) share your opinion
("it depends").

Etc.

And, it is all made that much worse by having to go through the same
excercise for each document. Having done the analysis on 10 documents,
doesn't help you much when it comes to the next document.

Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf