Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU> Wed, 21 January 2009 18:07 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 CB3F13A696B; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:07:26 -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 19B7E28C12E; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:07:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 wXFxBCaDJwxd; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432DA3A67FA; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ewe.isi.edu (ewe.isi.edu [128.9.160.219]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0LI6VAv025103; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20090121100156.02670878@boreas.isi.edu>
X-Sender: braden@boreas.isi.edu (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:16:04 -0800
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
From: Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem
In-Reply-To: <7FCA5612-AACD-404A-A454-E72AB9A5F51E@softarmor.com>
References: <70873A2B7F744826B0507D4B84903E60@noisy> <54974382E5FF41D3A40EFDF758DB8C49@DGBP7M81> <20090112211809.515993A67EA@core3.amsl.com> <A2460A3CBF9453B10BC02375@PST.jck.com> <20090112221608.5659A3A67EA@core3.amsl.com> <7FCA5612-AACD-404A-A454-E72AB9A5F51E@softarmor.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: braden@isi.edu
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, trustees@ietf.org, ietf@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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org At 11:58 PM 1/20/2009, Dean Willis wrote:




>Given that we've historically weeded out the contributor-list on a
>document to "four or less", even if there were really dozens of
>"contributors" at the alleged insistence of the RFC Editor, I don't
>see how any older document or even a majority of new documents-in- 
>progress could be adapted to the new rules.


Whoa!  This contains several errors of fact and implication.  The number 
authors named
on the front page of  an RFC are generally limited to 5 (there are 
occasional exceptions for
good cause).  This rule was arrived at after discussions in
the IETF and it has enjoyed general community support; it was not "at the 
insistence of the RFC
Editor".  The RFC Editor 's role was to alert the community to a tendency 
towards
ballooning of author lists when every telecomm vendor wanted their name on the
RFC, and perhaps it is true that the magic number "5" (which could have 
been 4 or 6 or ....)
was chosen and documented by the RFC Editor.  Otherwise, it was a community
consensus.

At the time that the 5 limit was put in place, a new Contributors section 
was added to RFCs
to contain the overflow authors/contributors.

It is my personal opinion, based on this history, that for IPR purposes we 
ought to treat
those listed in the Contributors sections as having equal copyrights to 
those named on
the front page.  (Maybe the Contributors section ought to come early in the 
RFC, rather
than late. but that would be another discussion.)  OTOH, the RFC Editor 
recoils from the
idea that those in the Contributors section should logically be included in 
the AUTH48
process; let's not!.

Bob Braden


>This appears to require complete abandonment of all previous works and
>"clean room" rewrites under the new terms.
>
>--
>Dean
>
>_______________________________________________
>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