Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 26 March 2008 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BEDC3A6BDB; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.545
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 jBZlx2lwcNq1; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CDB428C29D; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
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 2611C3A6BE9; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 CPwmilk1j5c7; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dizzyd.com (dizzyd.com [207.210.219.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C8F3A6885; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wrk225.corp.jabber.com (dencfw1.jabber.com [207.182.164.5]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by dizzyd.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E430B40053; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:13:49 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <47EAAEA7.2020002@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:14:31 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
References: <20080324200545.D6E6328C3AE@core3.amsl.com> <47E9C36E.5080405@stpeter.im> <015EC8A6374CEA1B604116AD@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <015EC8A6374CEA1B604116AD@localhost>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, ipr-wg@ietf.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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0345615145=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 21:30:54 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
> <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> 
>> Russ Housley wrote:
>>> During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
>>> "heads up" on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF
>>> Last Call.  Both of the documents have now reached IETF Last
>>> call.  The Last Call announcements are attached.  Please review and
>>> comment.
>>
>> I've given these drafts a first reading. The following comments may
>> represent a misunderstanding on my part, but I provide them in the
>> interest of clarifying the meaning of these drafts.
>>
>> One concern I have is the distinction between text and code. Where and
>> how is that line drawn? What about, for example, protocol examples (of
>> which there are many in most RFCs)? Are they text or code?
> 
> the -outgoing draft contains this text:
> 
>   IETF contributions often include components intended to be directly
>   processed by a computer.  Examples of these include ABNF definitions,
>   XML Schemas, XML DTDs, XML RelaxNG definitions, tables of values,
>   MIBs, ASN.1, or classical programming code.
> 
> And, recognizing that it's impossible to come up with a closed list of such
> items that is valid for all time:
> 
>   While it is up to the Trustees of the IETF Trust to determine the
>   best way of meeting this objective, two mechanisms are suggested here
>   that are believed to be helpful in documenting the intended grant to
>   readers and users of IETF contributions.
> 
>   Firstly, the Trustees of the IETF Trust should maintain, in a
>   suitable, easily accessible fashion, a list of common RFC components
>   which will be considered to be code.  To start, this list should
>   include at least the items listed above.  The Trustees of the IETF
>   Trust will add to this list as they deems suitable or as it is
>   directed by the IETF.
> 
>   Additionally, the Trustees of the IETF Trust should define a textual
>   representation to be included in an IETF contribution to indicate
>   that a portion of the document is considered by the authors (and
>   later the working group, and upon approval the IETF) to be code, and
>   to be subject to the permissions granted to use code.
> 
> I don't think protocol examples are code - they're not written in a
> parseable language. OTOH, if someone were to write protocol examples
> using an ASCII representation of ITU-T's TTCN, that would probably be
> code, and the IETF Trust should update their list to include that format.
> 
>> Another concern is the limitation on copying of text. It seems quite
>> reasonable for developers to include snippets of text in their programs
>> (think literate programming), and under many code licenses it is
>> difficult if not impossible to separately license the code and any
>> copied text when bundled together.
>>
>> Regarding the copying of text, Section 4.4 of the outgoing draft says:
>>
>>    There is no consensus at this time to permit the use of text from
>>    RFCs in contexts where the right to modify the text is required.  The
>>    authors of IETF contributions may be able and willing to grant such
>>    rights independently of the rights they have granted to the IETF by
>>    making the contribution.
>>
>> But Section 6 of the incoming draft says:
>>
>>    It is also important to note that additional copyright notices are
>>    not permitted in IETF Documents except in the case where such
>>    document is the product of a joint development effort between the
>>    IETF and another standards development organization or the document
>>    is a republication of the work of another standards development
>>    organization.  Such exceptions must be approved on an individual
>>    basis by the IAB.
>>
>> So it's not clear to me how contributors could (easily) grant the right
>> to modify text that is copied from an RFC -- unless they do so outside
>> the Internet Standards Process (based, I suppose, on the rights retained
>> by the contributors). However, it seems that each implementor would need
>> to separately approach the contributors in order to do that (and how
>> would they know that the contributors are approachable in that way if
>> not through inclusion of some kind of notice in the relevant RFC -- and
>> would such a notice comprise an "additional copyright notice" as
>> described in Section 6 fo the incoming draft?).
> 
> Exactly; this is no change from the current copying conditions for RFCs.
> In fact, the code copying conditions are more permissive than the status
> quo ante.
> 
> A note claiming that "this text is also available from source X, check
> copying conditions there" would not be a copyright notice.
> I don't think "this text is also available under GFDL from source X" is
> a copyright notice either; it's a license, not a copyright notice.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to be sure.

>> Finally, the outbound draft merely provides recommendations regarding
>> license text and other materials, final definition of which seems to be
>> under the sole purview of the Trustees of the IETF Trust. However, the
>> outbound draft does not specify if the work of the Trustees shall be
>> subject to review by the IPR WG, the IESG, the IAB, or the IETF
>> community (e.g., in the form of an Internet-Draft) before it takes
>> effect.
> 
> No, it does not. I'd like someone from the Trust to speak up about their
> thoughts about suitable review processes.

Yes, that would be appreciated.

> Note that the IPR WG can't do the review going forward; once these
> documents are approved (if they are), I intend to ask that the group is
> shut down.

That seems sensible.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

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