Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 09 January 2009 04:14 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 93EAB3A6B0B; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:14:03 -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 35F533A6B00; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:14:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 lT0HaZZAGiFS; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:14:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A991A3A67FD; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:14:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so10351730wfd.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:13:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7GwMUMAtoLaM3zuAGDGLfp3cjBejzO9FSQ3K9fyfbhk=; b=GV13UUInuR01BrT3/ZYcpygPsZAIi5hPGfgYGj0knnXT+2WKmcaocRSzR19LGzjbh8 dr+leM3f3KM6HJJDIiBasJQGBXsLBmMXfhafFRGl7JS4muN7ynwJSVIAXuGdBlctJzuc 8eAK9WmV6D1I+oh0nzF+MGXArrE7p+j9nEbzg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=S6wF/Mnt1HaDngicciuWyppjsOaBA3A852vDlLwPkF8c5N2nJZPE9D8r/MreV1Y1dy K1iDo1yvwG0JWaWdwRoJyiKCE5whNrLmYJTPv2ZtFZchgohVZhOIBc6ixKfJw1xt3QoS f1He8D0VxIxUuR8u7duIVZex630nGo4RMyd58=
Received: by 10.142.140.14 with SMTP id n14mr10502434wfd.292.1231474427354; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?10.1.1.4? (118-93-185-90.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.93.185.90]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm400732wfd.14.2009.01.08.20.13.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4966CEF3.8080506@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:13:39 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
References: <70873A2B7F744826B0507D4B84903E60@noisy> <FB8A848E-E415-4CDE-9E3F-5C74A5614F18@cisco.com> <F857DDBB-CDEE-48A8-B59C-56AEDA65CE79@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <F857DDBB-CDEE-48A8-B59C-56AEDA65CE79@cs.tcd.ie>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
On 2009-01-09 13:59, Stephen Farrell wrote: > +1 to fred's proposal, let the exceptions be just that and don't bother > most I-D authors, > Stephen. > > On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:49, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote: > >> You asked me to make this comment publicly, so here it is. >> >> In my opinion, we need a 5378-bis that keeps the good bits but >> corrects the issue that has been problematic. The question before the >> house is how best to achieve that. The proposal here is to provide a >> work-around that enables an internet draft author to state that s/he >> has not verified the transferability of his/her text, which will work >> until an appropriate 5378-bis can be produced. This means that the >> tools people have to produce and accept the work-around and later on >> change the tools to accept 5378-bis, and it places a burden on authors >> to make that statement. >> >> From my perspective, the best approach involves keeping the general >> case simple. The documents that have been transferred outside the IETF >> in the past five years is a single digit number, a tenth of a percent >> of all RFCs if not a smaller fraction. If that was the main problem, I would agree. But it isn't; it's the ability to allow appropriate use of extracts, including code extracts, in 3rd party documents. That potentially concerns every RFC, and automatically concerns every RFC that is a new version of an older one. It isn't hard to fix in my opinion (well, I just posted a draft with the proposed fix) and I don't see that it *requires* any tool fixes. Optionally, the tools could provide a macro that expands to the disclaimer text, but cut-and-paste would work equally well. Brian >> From my perspective, the >> simplest solution to the transfer issue is to ask the people relevant >> to a document for which transfer has been suggested whether they have >> an issue with transferring it, rather than asking every document >> author his or her opinion on the vast majority of documents, which >> will never be transferred. Remember that this boilerplate affects >> internet drafts, but most internet drafts are discussion documents - a >> fraction of internet drafts even become RFCs, and a small fraction of >> RFCs are transferred elsewhere. >> >> As to the other issues that 5378 addresses, I suspect that a better >> approach will be to fall back to 3978/4748/2026 temporarily and move >> to 5378-bis when it comes rather than to use this very general >> workaround to 5378's issues until 5378-bis is resolved. 3978 etc >> worked just fine for most purposes... >> >> >> >> On Jan 8, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Ed Juskevicius wrote: >> >>> The purpose of this message is twofold: >>> >>> 1) To summarize the issues that some members of our community >>> have experienced since the publication of RFC 5378 in November 2008, >>> and >>> 2) To invite community review and discussion on a potential work-around >>> being considered by the IETF Trustees. >>> >>> Some I-D authors are having difficulty implementing RFC 5378. An >>> example of the difficulty is as follows: >>> >>> - an author wants to include pre-5378 content in a new submission >>> or contribution to the IETF, but >>> - s/he is not certain that all of the author(s) of the earlier >>> material have agreed to license it to the IETF Trust according >>> to RFC 5378. >>> >>> If an I-D author includes pre-5378 material in a new document, then s/he >>> must represent or warrant that all of the authors who created the >>> pre-5378 material have granted rights for that material to the IETF >>> Trust. >>> If s/he cannot make this assertion, then s/he has a problem. >>> >>> This situation has halted the progression of some Internet-Drafts and >>> interrupted the publication of some RFCs. The Trustees of the IETF >>> Trust >>> are investigating ways to implement a temporary work-around so that IETF >>> work can continue to progress. A permanent solution to this "pre-5378 >>> problem" may require an update to RFC 5378, for example new work by the >>> community to create a 5378-bis document. >>> >>> The remainder of this message provides an outline of the temporary work- >>> around being considered by the Trustees. >>> >>> RFC 5378 sections 1.j and 5.3.c provide the IETF Trust with the >>> authority to develop legend text for authors to use in situations where >>> they wish to limit the granting of rights to modify and prepare >>> derivatives of the documents they submit. The Trustees used this >>> authority in 2008 to develop and adopt the current "Legal Provisions >>> Relating to IETF Documents" which are posted at: >>> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/. >>> >>> The Trustees are now considering the creation of optional new legend >>> text >>> which could be used by authors experiencing the "pre-5378 problem". >>> >>> The new legend text, if implemented, would do the following: >>> >>> a. Provide Authors and Contributors with a way to identify (to the >>> IETF Trust) that their contributions contain material from pre-5378 >>> documents for which RFC 5378 rights to modify the material outside >>> the IETF standards process may not have been granted, and >>> >>> b. Provide the IETF Trust and the community with a clear indication >>> of every document containing pre-5378 content and having the >>> "pre-5378 problem". >>> >>> So, how could the creation and use of some new legend text help people >>> work-around the pre-5378 problem? >>> >>> The proposed answer is as follows: >>> >>> 1. Anyone having a contribution with the "pre-5378" problem should add >>> new legend text to the contribution, to clearly flag that it includes >>> pre-5378 material for which all of the rights needed under RFC 5378 >>> may not have been granted, and >>> >>> 2. The IETF Trust will consider authors and contributors (with the >>> pre-5378 problem) to have met their RFC 5378 obligations if the >>> new legend text appears on their documents, and >>> >>> 3. Authors and contributors should only resort to adding the new >>> legend text to their documents (per #1) if they cannot develop >>> certainty that all of the author(s) of pre-5378 material in >>> their documents have agreed to license the pre-5378 content to >>> the IETF Trust according to RFC 5378. >>> >>> The proposed wording for the new legend text is now available for your >>> review and comments in section 6.c.iii of a draft revision to the >>> IETF Trust's "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents" located at >>> http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html. >>> >>> Please note that the above document also contains new text in section >>> 5.c >>> dealing with "License Limitations". >>> >>> If your review and feedback on this proposed work-around is positive, >>> then the new text may be adopted by the Trustees in early February 2009, >>> and then be published as an official revision to the Legal Provisions >>> document. If so adopted, Internet-Drafts with pre-5378 material may >>> advance within the Internet standards process and get published as RFCs >>> where otherwise qualified to do so. Unless covered by sections 6.c.i or >>> 6.c.ii, authors of documents in which there is no pre-5378 >>> material must provide a RFC 5378 license with no limitation on >>> modifications outside the IETF standards process. >>> >>> The IETF Trust will not grant the right to modify or prepare derivative >>> works of any specific RFC or other IETF Contribution outside the IETF >>> standards process until RFC 5378 rights pertaining to that document have >>> been obtained from all authors and after compliance by the IETF Trust >>> with RFC 5377. The Trustees will establish one or more mechanisms by >>> which authors of pre-5378 documents may grant RFC 5378 rights. >>> >>> The Trustees hereby invite your review, comments and suggestions on this >>> proposed work-around to the "pre-5378 problem". The period for this >>> review >>> is 30 days. Microsoft WORD and PDF versions of the proposed >>> revisions are >>> attached to this message. Copies are also available on the IETF Trust >>> website under the heading "DRAFT Policy and Procedures Being >>> Developed" at: >>> http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html >>> >>> All feedback submitted before the end of February 7th will be >>> considered by >>> the Trustees. A decision on whether to move forward with this >>> proposal will >>> be made and communicated to you before the end of February 15th. >>> >>> Please give this your attention. >>> >>> Regards and Happy New Year ! >>> >>> Ed Juskevicius, on behalf of the IETF Trustees >>> edj.etc@gmail.com >>> <Draft-Update-to-IETF-Trust-Legal-Provisions-1-06-09.DOC><Draft-Update-to-IETF-Trust-Legal-Provisions-1-06-09.pdf>_______________________________________________ >>> >>> Trustees mailing list >>> Trustees@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your revie… Ed Juskevicius
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… TSG
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Stephen Farrell
- RE: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Ed Juskevicius
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Martin Duerst
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Thomas Narten
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Thomas Narten
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Fred Baker
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John Leslie
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Lawrence Rosen
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Jeffrey Hutzelman
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Lawrence Rosen
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Ted Hardie
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Lawrence Rosen
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… ned+ietf
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Theodore Tso
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Bill Manning
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Simon Josefsson
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Theodore Tso
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Lawrence Rosen
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Dave CROCKER
- A long-term meta-fix (was: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNC… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… ned+ietf
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Bill Manning
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Bill Manning
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Simon Josefsson
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John C Klensin
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Lawrence Rosen
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Theodore Tso
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… TSG
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Simon Josefsson
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Simon Josefsson
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Fred Baker
- 5378 - one purpose Black_David
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… David Harrington
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Russ Housley
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… John C Klensin
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Russ Housley
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Russ Housley
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John C Klensin
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Ed Juskevicius
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Ed Juskevicius
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Stephan Wenger
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Martin Duerst
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Russ Housley
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… TSG
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Russ Housley
- RE: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Contreras, Jorge
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Tom.Petch
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Russ Housley
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Bill Fenner
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Russ Housley
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Tom.Petch
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Tom.Petch
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Russ Housley
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Dean Willis
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Russ Housley
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Russ Housley
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees in… Theodore Tso
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Bob Braden
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Roy T. Fielding
- Editors vs Authors vs Contributors, was: ANNOUNCE… Julian Reschke
- Re: Editors vs Authors vs Contributors, was: ANNO… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Editors vs Authors vs Contributors, was: ANNO… Theodore Tso
- Re: Editors vs Authors vs Contributors, was: ANNO… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Editors vs Authors vs Contributors, was: ANNO… Simon Josefsson
- Re: Editors vs Authors vs Contributors, was: ANNO… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Editors vs Authors vs Contributors, was: ANNO… Simon Josefsson
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… Dean Willis
- Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your r… John C Klensin
- Re: Editors vs Authors vs Contributors, was: ANNO… Julian Reschke