Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 26 March 2016 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572F512D59E for <>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EEvBzexQDUkw for <>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DD012D560 for <>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id tt10so68900795pab.3 for <>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PvPm3HrLL6k/MUj8X/QLSFCMmkCTxCtD6RnaLjP+QtA=; b=raJrwiApYRzyrrzrTKR7F1fBALgczutzABzVbIkVzMDQbpNOOm2cw1V8BTqv60Mp0H c/zSLRu78wQ72fREH7Y3pLrxsfXpY+RjbDeynRsRYVQMG20WsHQTts1mO/4JD+5AyVlO hEujtYHezqvpG6Y/q8+FSQPe6WhcBOs6Er4I6opQ1sm/urS0XhbH/hUebCLLpyeozSyE hKLSh9EVl1jHXaUVnRMyAkrFixtMNk1ZFhSrmfl7UaHM8yXuLiRnb1bEhYh3BcCnlOF1 wsU1jpHiMfUoSVxlbYGRy9wKh3O6mAG1Bi6+lw0AJwksSwQZpuSv49j8uZrobMdKtsRO Dqqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=PvPm3HrLL6k/MUj8X/QLSFCMmkCTxCtD6RnaLjP+QtA=; b=dT64TuKEOzrIuM/zrqkqUjOMXvtnUNojvC6bdgeTTw8f0FoWDjggfymJpt8pLWQhtn aCYE997T2ImBvXrUa2JCnfW6el5lU7KRYX/D1TTWLPPSRLpzy4l6pALwG+IT1h/ctDZQ V2+Uz+7NFub/4/YMfEfEl/iddfqS81Fba/3oKmY8HJY63IXP/BMpasx2Mrwa9AyDffbd ZRAW3qyP6yMbqntabEzHF78cz5NXn8DELc47PpwKvxBX5QeAsXiVMwu7G6NKUOlO9ciJ FLm61YZ/x66qgIWFf+S5JWoOZ98BWQqvfCv1sV59QO9QLnDUimsD+epHfs+NH1s5Mj3i It8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKs0DHRgkxu9AaxigIRxVM622jZR65GqBlUQmy8HOA0WoXDcGCjmqHndJlBgPXgRw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id xj9mr30837723pac.19.1459022429225; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:738b:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:738b:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id ml5sm24933601pab.2.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
To: John C Klensin <>, Harald Alvestrand <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:00:38 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 20:00:31 -0000

On 27/03/2016 03:17, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Saturday, March 26, 2016 10:36 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
> <> wrote:
>> If the documents clearly define the term "design team" as
>> teams that are created by a decision in an IETF process, I
>> have very few problem extending "IETF contribution" to
>> contributions to the design team.
>> If (as I've sometimes seen) everyone who meets to hash out an
>> idea wants to call themselves + their friends is a "design
>> team", then I see a problem with the extension.
>> The lunchtime "bar BOF" would be a nice test case - arranged
>> by WG chairs over the WG (or IETF non-WG) mailing list, it
>> would be an IETF activity with IETF contribution; arranged
>> between friends on the way out of the preceding WG meeting, it
>> would (I think) not be.
> I think this is a good summary of a reasonable way to draw the
> line.  

I agree. In terms of wording in the draft, I'll repeat that
referring to RFC 2418 seems appropriate (rather than relying
on duplicate definitions of terms). To be exact, perhaps:

      Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and
      electronic communications, which are addressed to:

      o the IETF plenary session,
      o any IETF working group [BCP25] or portion thereof,
      o any IETF "birds of a feather" (BOF) session or portion thereof,
      o any IETF design team [BCP25] or portion thereof,
      o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,

(I intentionally deleted "-sanctioned". As far as I can see it's
redundant and confuses the issue.)

Incidentally, does the "the IESG, or any member thereof" cover
IETF Directorates, which are established by individual IESG members?


> For the second case, I do note that there have been
> attempts by non-participants to define the second sort of group
> as a design team in order to give them (or the WG Chairs)
> leverage over membership and participation.  But I'd hope to
> keep that separate... and a WG Chair could, subject to appeal,
> designate such a group as a design team if it seemed to be
> getting out of hand, so maybe there is no problem in practice.
>      john