Re: no no derivatives, was legal consultation (was List moderator action)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 08-May-26 14:11, John C Klensin wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> Let me split a hair or two:  There are strong arguments (already made
> in notes you may not have read yet) for allowing "no derivatives" for
> an initial I-D for the "bring into some sort of discussion with an AD
> about sponsorship or into a DISPATCH process to see if the IETF is
> interested".  That set of arguments would almost certainly apply to
> published RFCs, especially in the IETF Stream.  I'd hate to make a
> rule that would then tangle us up in special cases, but, in general,
> that reason for allowing "no derivatives" probably would not only
> apply to drafts a WG has agreed to examine, ones dispatched to a WG,
> or ones that an AD had agreed to sponsor.  Except in very odd cases
> that I have trouble imagining, I wouldn't expect to see such a
> disclaimer on the second (i.e., -01) version of an I-D.  A rule that
> we didn't want to allow a "no derivatives" clause in a published RFC
> would have zero impact on such an "is the IETF interested" I-Ds.

Assuming that be "we" you mean the IETF stream, yes. And as I have
said elsewhere, RFC 8789 essentially does this already, but means
that it could still be done in unusual circumstances (such as you
describe below).

So if we want to close this discussion, something like
draft-sayre-gendispatch-derivative is probably sufficient, but
I'm pretty sure it will need close scrutiny by counsel.

     Brian

> 
> Second, while I think the odds that we would, again, find a need to
> republish an approved standard or technical report developed by a
> different SDO or other organization -- it is just too easy for them
> to put up a web page somewhere -- are quite small, experience
> suggests that, if we made such a rule, if would be only a matter of
> time before an odd case came up for which we'd have to scramble
> around to adjust the rules or find a loophole.  I can even imagine at
> least one scenario in which that need would arise... and require a
> normative reference from a Standards Track document.  Even an "those
> could be handled by the ISE" rule would work only most of the time.
> Without speaking for any of the ISEs or their predecessors with whom
> I've worked, I find it fairly easy to imagine a situation in which a
> request to republish an externally produced document would arise and
> an ISE would decide it should not be published without IETF rough
> consensus for doing so.  Forcing a complex dance in which the IESG
> issued a Last Call on an ISE Stream document, then "suggested" the
> ISE publish it, but waiving whatever rules we have about normative
> references to such a document, does not seem to me to be in anyone's
> interest, especially the interests of transparency about what we are
> doing.
> 
> best,
>     john
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --On Friday, May 8, 2026 12:58 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, I meant:
>>
>> Are there any other exemplars between RFC 5378 and RFC 7016?
>>
>> Regards/Ngā mihi
>>      Brian Carpenter
>>
>> On 08-May-26 12:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 08-May-26 06:38, John Levine wrote:
>>>> It appears that Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> said:
>>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>>>>
>>>>>     *
>>>>> Therefore, IMHO it would be perfectly reasonable to disallow "no
>>>>>     *
>>>>> derivative rights" for all IETF stream contributions.
>>>>>
>>>>> That�s a really bad idea.  For example, I could post a draft
>>>>> with no-derivative as a trial balloon to see if the IETF is
>>>>> interested, say as a DISPATCH presentation. If not, then I am
>>>>> free to take it to other places or to seek a patent.
>>>>
>>>> Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you. These days, it
>>>> would take about 10 seconds to stick a draft or draft-like thing
>>>> on a server somewhere else and send a note to an IETF list saying
>>>> take a look at my document at https://blah and tell us if you're
>>>> interested.
>>>>
>>>> Considering the length of this thread, I think the simplification
>>>> would be worth it. I realize there is a process nit about how you
>>>> might ask to DISPATCH somehthing if there isn't an I-D but I
>>>> think we can deal with it.
>>>>
>>>> By my count there have been 21 RFCs published with "no
>>>> derivatives" lanaguage, the most recent RFC8216 in 2017. The last
>>>> in the IETF stream was RFC7016 in 2013, over a decade ago.
>>>
>>> And it could not be published in the IETF stream today, per RFC
>>> 8789.
>>>
>>> Are there any other exemplars between RFC 5378 and RFC 8216?
>>>
>>>        Brian
> 
>