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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 26 January 2017 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 7765312941E; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:15:31 -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 xGEZh0yIY1hm; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x242.google.com (mail-pf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::242]) (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 6FE3B129436; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:15:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id y143so15336019pfb.1; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:15:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gEOZtsPt1PQVcpPUhJ19eDCu7tviBlqM3VVktyIrdBM=; b=P/A4JEzG8BWWd9jdb2fSq2/UK+zpiKcM4i7s4YeiDNBjlbC5m2TnfC4+nuhtgrtJY/ difJ3JiN3iQQjSggrHYjTjIZ2Tn60e3oy+OZl5G/IcB7bv4uAi7IPppYO00nHExYYDVe kngl1hjAdGeYoOMONN8koRct0tRV/bsvUbpiu+tFDcnJs52fDI5fKzsTMJR8hhcayuKV T8XRdQZuQyqJwXUHvRRb1MrySLSEx0h0/I9XRB/L/VRtuxC1DqrA4aN4Pj4/2QoZ9jv4 hemg45OqpjQkVLvDXZE3TaPVkCzs4c7vBc7EaS5NJNP3/MVIXlY5wIadrsDLCD5vT4fL a2zg==
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:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gEOZtsPt1PQVcpPUhJ19eDCu7tviBlqM3VVktyIrdBM=; b=CArYu4oA5srRR0bYxTVwpJS8tE1lRFhU1d8jyQ81c5Yt/Kcr99hndleyhFk3eN9Nur 75/DZOvFe+cYy546cC3R/1W59ah1JL7mNnICfZ1jR5lkaqMlaxVhQt3ubvd1zhCE+rGu pQ7/znN1Fz5Qs1+D3UxA/1L/oy2UmWAJqeuavZu5X9eMCiAN3rcSo19ml5WwPKiYnx06 vP229aCE9FpjUbF0HYe73ghyv+0LALNDp3XiDna1JSE/MTlPhkqm2j4YsDNBbx9n6GPb qxVWj0dcuPEvOjzFpufADjDg3dawPb8FYWZeRd1mUK/6OD78CEryYkLA00LCQ2GU30hL zF2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLCDJBw7I+ekz6Sx14UN2kOXIuqi6R7pguy++oKb3OtWGB70YLbkl1zB2K3bmSQeg==
X-Received: by 10.98.200.207 with SMTP id i76mr112208pfk.38.1485389717675; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:15:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.26] ([118.149.111.106]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 82sm3628620pge.42.2017.01.25.16.15.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:15:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10.txt> (Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology) to Best Current Practice
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <ffd3b8e0-d390-e289-a26b-cd00bc0095da@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:15:21 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5031cdac-2a82-a61d-b33d-f217a5f9d3c9@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/O3t4HUNCGnBRmEcory4_7j-9jlg>
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 00:15:31 -0000

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.

>>
>>> 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 ...

Regards,
   Brian