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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

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