IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status