Re: RFC5378 alternate procedure (was: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary)

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

John,

I like the draft. It looks like a fairly pragmatic approach to solve  
the problem.

I believe it would allow us to continue work where the text had been  
provided under the 3978 rules. Without something like this, I don't  
know how I can submit new versions of  the WG internet drafts that I  
am an co-author of. I can not even figure out who are all the people  
that contributed significant text to the WG drafts much less imagine  
how I will get permission from all of them to submit the draft under  
the the 5378 rules.

Cullen

On Dec 15, 2008, at 1:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> Hi.
>
> In an attempt to get this discussion unstuck and to provide a
> way forward for those of us whose reading of 5378 (or advice
> from counsel) have convinced us that we cannot post most
> documents that contain older text written by others under the
> new rules, I've posted a new I-D,
> draft-klensin-rfc5378var-00.txt.
>
> It would be very helpful if people would actually read the draft
> before commenting on it -- it isn't very long, and the key
> section that contains the new procedure (Section 4) is under 40
> lines of text -- but the intent is to make sure we don't get
> stuck or that we get unstuck as quickly as possible.
>
> While the draft reviews the history and context of the
> situation, the elevator summary of the proposal is that, if an
> author/ contributor is working on a document that contains old
> text and concludes that he or she cannot reasonably comply with
> the provisions of 5378, then it is permitted to post the
> document with IPR rules that are strictly in conformance with
> RFC 3978.
>
> In deference to the ever-patient and underappreciated
> maintainers of tools, I note that this would require no changes
> other than disabling (or later un-enabling) the 5378-only check
> that I assume the Secretariat is going to turn on tomorrow.
>
> A different possibility would be to create an exception
> procedure in which such an author would have to request an
> exemption from the IESG or the Trustees (or for the IESG to
> conclude that the variance procedure of RFC 2026 could be used
> for these cases).   My personal opinion is that those approaches
> would add to the workload of people who are already too busy and
> further bog us down.
>
> This draft is not intended as a long term solution.   Long-term,
> I think we will need to revise 5378 to make explicit provision
> for new documents that contain older material for which having
> the IETF Trust obtain additional rights is not feasible.  The
> draft discusses that situation further.   But I don't believe
> that we should even attempt to make that sort of change quickly,
> especially since I am very sensitive to Simon's comment from
> earlier today that I would generalize as "every time a new issue
> comes up, we respond by making things more complex and harder to
> understand and work with".
>
> So, in the short term, I hope this document will either provide
> a basis for the new BCP that Russ indicated that the Trustees
> need or at least can focus enough discussion that someone else
> can generate such a BCP draft.
>
>     john
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf