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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 25 March 2016 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8E212D6D6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JuNk8Dm8noXP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EA6E12D569 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1ajYOh-0005Sd-5f; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:31:55 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:31:50 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Message-ID: <FDF935D9B80D3F03F2A93CD8@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <56F59441.8030901@gmail.com>
References: <0000431F-F977-4A24-BA4D-064F740977A0@piuha.net> <DC9B799D-A1EF-457C-B791-9F103FDA7CD6@vigilsec.com> <56F59441.8030901@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eFcTbZZSaCKT_PDbmroiCC9yJGw>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:31:59 -0000


--On Saturday, March 26, 2016 08:40 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's clear that any design team *output* is a contribution.
> But if a group of friends have a chat over lunch, not as a
> design team mandated by WG chairs, and one of them mentions a
> silly idea that is rejected in favour of a good idea that the
> group later proposes to the WG, is that silly idea a
> contribution? I don't think so.

+1.  But what makes that output a Contribution is its injection
into the IETF process as an I-D, a WG discussion, a comment at a
plenary microphone, or mention on an IETF-related mailing list.
All of those are clearly Contributions even under 3979 and its
predecessors.

> All the same, I think the phrase "IETF-sanctioned" is
> redundant. A citation of RFC 2418 would be in order, perhaps.

Remember that we have a significant number of documents,
standards-track and otherwise, that do not come out of WGs and
that we have traditionally wanted to be covered by IPR
disclosure rules.   2418, AFAICT, is only about WGs.

    john