Stream differences (Was: legal consultation)

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 7 May 2026, at 19:58, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 07-May-26 19:16, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> 
> The IETF cannot remove the option globally. The IETF can only remove it
> for the IETF stream. The other streams can make their own decisions.
> 
>> With your proposal, the complexity is increased, and coupling different
>> streams to different set of legal terms.
> 
> That is already the case. Each stream is different.
> 
>> It also begs the question how
>> to deal with a single document switches back and forth between streams,
>> or handling contributions received for each situation.  If we really
>> don't want to go down into that complexity rabbit hole, I suggest to
>> avoid it.
> 
> We are already there, and have been since the separate streams were
> properly defined. For the IETF it would get simpler, for the other
> streams nothing would change.

Hmm, not quite.  All of the streams explicitly adopt RFC 5378 or BCP 78

Three reference RFC 5378:
- IRTF stream in Section 3 of RFC 5743
- Independent stream in Section 4 of RFC 5744
- IAB stream in Section in Section 4 of RFC 5745

With this same language:

> During Internet-Draft submission, authors who intend to submit their
> document for publication in the XXX stream will grant rights as
> described in [RFC5378]. To request that the contribution be
> published as an RFC that permits no derivative works, an author may
> use the form specified for use with RFC 5378.


One references BCP 78
- Editorial stream in Section 3.2.2 of RFC 9920

So obsoleting either RFC 5378 or just the derivatives clauses has an immediate knock-on effect that has to be resolved, with the current status quo being that the streams are aligned,

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]