Re: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)

[Simon Josefsson <[e-mail]>]

Henk Uijterwaal <[e-mail]> writes:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>> Comments sought for:  Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP
>>
>> Is this a solution looking for a problem?  RFC 5377 is an example of
>> where the IETF asks the Trust do something.  What is wrong with using
>> the same approach in the future?   The approach would be that someone
>> writes an I-D, there is IETF-wide last call on it, and it is either
>> approved or not.   If it is approved, the Trust needs to act.
>
> Correct and this document specifies how the trust will react: it takes
> the guidance (for example, RFC 5377), modifies the text, gets legal
> advice and proposes an implementation to the community.  The community
> reviews the changes and checks that what is implemented, is what is
> requested.

I wish that is how it would work.  The most recent change of the TLP was
not following that process -- instead the Trust proposed the change and
implemented it after some delay -- and, for example, it resulted in a
change to how BSD licensed portions extracted from IETF documents that
is not consistent with common practice.

>>> 2. Whoever brings up the problem, writes a problem statement.
>>>    a. In case 1a: this can be an individual submission ID or a ID from
>>> a WG
>>>       chartered to discuss these items.
>>>    b. In case 1b: A note from the trust to the community.
>>>    c. In case 1c: A note from whoever brings up the issue.
>>
>> For 2c, whom is the note to?  To only the trust or to the community?  If
>> the former, will be trust communicate the request to the community?
>
> 2c are cases where the Trust manages something for another stream, so in
> first order, I'd say that the note is for the trust and that other stream.
> I don't see a problem sending it else where though.

2c does not seem restricted for non-IETF streams from the writing above.
I think it is important that the IETF is notified for issues relating to
the IETF stream.

>>> 4. Trust (with legal counsel) reviews the issue and comes up with a
>>> response:
>>>    a. No, we don't think changing this is a good idea, because ...
>>>
>>>    b. Yes, we suggest to modify the text as follows ... (perhaps with
>>>       some background material why this is the answer).
>>
>> I'm strongly concerned that this puts the decision making of what is and
>> what is not a problem into the Trust's hands. 
>
> No, there is always step 5: review of the new text or decision not to change
> the text.  If a suggestion isn't considered a good idea by the Trust, the
> reasons for not changing it can be discussed in this step.

Step 4 puts a veto for changes into the Trust's hands.  Members on the
Trust can be removed by the IETF, but I don't believe that is a good way
to make the Trust to do something the IETF requests.

/Simon