Re: Last Call: <draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10.txt> (Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology) to Best Current Practice

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 26 January 2017 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C0E12952C; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 03:00:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Foq38ETYGeCf; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 03:00:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92DB6129529; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 03:00:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id r144so77460040wme.1; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 03:00:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/amjtWW3j2NuE0fwGCN5CzJCYuuNwQu0XSeyY7IvVtc=; b=VKKySLvRJVUWglgiX7zNAqqYH80i4+MVqNc8SSQtZU9F0e0zFGH3obH7aFGTK2Qejc Gq45anFpvT8A3M0zslrIiY7tieTj8ZaY1koyxl0z5NvQJQCK6IKB6xnEVHieS5IabE1f ZEnq2+YbOmgkZE3F7MojltDn0Q8uzdKRa88sjaAWSpkpO3cL0OeQLSO9NV1DjYIAOOda qkWmkvGFhW3pomS8b3zqurjAxcddZ54LjHx+OF5faZj9bFU/S/XLpTA6OIPWMOkXrJpD +HFlU9cWG95sdrdeQbvWw0+fomj+AEOo8qFm1KWQ6+sMvH2NwSGNiLALmj8Ee9G102gw y/5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/amjtWW3j2NuE0fwGCN5CzJCYuuNwQu0XSeyY7IvVtc=; b=AaSRo/RJK+/LvL+uwAul8U0WmfK2W2ppOh/ZTNqpeJaj7Z1rCnkMVKvhLhhLl7rJdq LaCj4tnjC7BuJ9FV7fzI3Yh+VD5fcttc9upM/BoQNWUzeVfqIy/W5hWtmxuo5/HEwlSW J726+oGmfII0HcigTr2T2O3mT5FOHSjORO8tbgp9ohl+goFAuMgIKDz+yC7yI/zw4k4Y jbM78FyLl35iqQx4cECHRdZ8vsH9nXYF4M7+Jx6EnXHMOMd6VpIaCEiVGx1ku+FCTH9O GgjveQWHFg4I+VEZeWpxVAoMD8wY9u1yK+f0JKM9CUHWtf/XCB7kdUsklYKYmcyA54N6 PIWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLsELAFyonY/NFhUMu+f0+U5cC20NkSbNtZdHeJDJygYzFPD7Lbb1SkJgY5g/Sbcw==
X-Received: by 10.223.147.225 with SMTP id 88mr2026901wrp.44.1485428411947; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 03:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a35sm1967823wra.21.2017.01.26.03.00.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Jan 2017 03:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10.txt> (Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology) to Best Current Practice
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@ericsson.com>
References: <148474911031.2261.11881119527780959351.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <190f4ec8-4236-03eb-3f98-77cfa0db7c70@gmail.com> <2C1C1542-F8BC-48E1-94FF-1C95B755C1A1@ericsson.com> <5031cdac-2a82-a61d-b33d-f217a5f9d3c9@gmail.com> <ffd3b8e0-d390-e289-a26b-cd00bc0095da@gmail.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1b9a491c-7267-5fb7-a31f-0e441ac96b2d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:00:06 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ffd3b8e0-d390-e289-a26b-cd00bc0095da@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L8T8PQT-Mh-y5rXk2m0rfGRMt-w>
Cc: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:00:15 -0000


On 26/01/2017 00:15, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 25/01/2017 23:07, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>
>> On 25/01/2017 07:42, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>> Stewart,
>>>
>>> Thanks again for your comments. Inline:
>>>
>>>> In the body of this document you say:
>>>>
>>>> j. "Internet-Draft": a temporary document used in the IETF and RFC
>>>>        Editor processes, as described in [RFC2026].
>>>>
>>>> RFC2026 states that the drafts are removed from the directory, implying
>>>> that after that time they are not available. Whilst that never really
>>>> reflected reality, the IETF through its tools system actively makes these
>>>> documents available in perpetuity. Given the legal nature of this draft
>>>> we ought to properly note the permanent availability of these temporary
>>>> documents.
>>> OK. Do you have a text suggestion, or would dropping “temporary” in this
>>> context be sufficient?
>> Well we could tell the whole story: they are a temporary document for
>> the purposes
>> of actively progressing our work, but are persistent and remain beyond
>> the publication of any
>> RFC for the purposes of traceability.
> I think just dropping "temporary" is sufficient. We know that I-Ds have
> been accepted as prior art in court cases, so it's really irrelevant
> for the purposes of the current draft. And I don't think we should do
> a backdoor update of RFC 2026 here.

Dropping temporary would work, but I don't see that telling the truth 
about what
actually happens and has happened for a long time is wrong either. If 
RFC2026 is
out of step with reality on this point,  there is no point in hiding it.

>
>>>> Section 5.3.3 specifically calls out ADs but there are many others who
>>>> fall into the same category: the GEN_ART team, the directorates of
>>>> other areas such as SEC and OPS, and of course regular contributors that
>>>> only read an out of area RFC when they need to use its contents.
>>> Fair point.
>>>
>>>> If the text is specifically going to call out ADs it ought to also call
>>>> out those that help ADs as part of their review process.
> It's section 5.2.3 actually. But I agree, it could read
>
>     By the nature of their office, IETF area directors or persons assisting
>     them may become aware of Contributions late in the process ...

Yes, that would fix that problem.

- Stewart