RE: Change in IPR policies

Adrian Farrel <> Tue, 09 June 2020 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56253A0867; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kngRuQHac0Wl; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83A683A0865; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 059Koao7019898; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 21:50:37 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09D72203A; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 21:50:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB60822032; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 21:50:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 059KoZLs015532 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Jun 2020 21:50:36 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Jay Daley'" <>, "'John C Klensin'" <>
Cc: <>, <>
References: <96A3BDFE6F7DC38D2366581F@PSB> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: Change in IPR policies
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 21:50:34 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <030e01d63e9f$9fcf3f50$df6dbdf0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHb2XMgRa+M4+Gd9co1ZdSHa5+KGAJJJVu8qLNBm8A=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.141-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--5.141-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--5.141200-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: +f/wAVSGjujxIbpQ8BhdbPHkpkyUphL9B4Id7CiQcz9+SLLtNOiBhvyJ aFJtckS0qUOjBkkLxgEI8eUQMLlIpblppeG/cvfmtKV49RpAH3u6hgVvSdGKo/UnpN1C2hZ8dYJ 3pC9XNt6JK2sn9oIdznWxJczm65yEigGMSLL+p0uOjIrMSa2sR8CpG6QaSSlCcJHSK1bfF9W4KN oeDfLV7G8C2psaP3qCfrXMSJZxoXXE23SQ1uKiHqCS5FukbuIIb/gdKMAFtwaEAZ+8YfT0PaSLK JxuiASSW4rWWYOHc24TmCRJrPNaSVTNH/IEdCNmWBSfJTziFx+6s6UL48vRAINSdfAQYTpko8WM kQWv6iXh7z8MHC5cZ3QdJ7XfU86eOwBXM346/+x036lWi15KZbPd2DchglEqYgvgAxBbDZjSau3 1jdmHIRqH7WNxXyOo
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 20:50:42 -0000

>> (2) There is a very specific and, as far as I know, completely
>> new, prohibition against distribution or broadcasting of any
>> meeting-related discussion or events.  That seems like a giant
>> step away from the IETF's tradition of openness and free
>> availability of materials.
> I need to check, but I think the intent there was to restrict 
> livestreaming and nothing else as the combination of live
> streaming + open jabber rooms would effectively allow
> participation without registration.  Once I’ve reviewed I
> will get that corrected.

Two points:
- The check box says "without IETF’s prior written consent"
  so perhaps the IETF would care to grant that wholesale
  and now.
- Does this mean that audio streaming will no longer happen?
   If so, I really (really, really) hope that Webex is going to let me
   join multiple simultaneous meetings so that I can easily skip in
   and out of the audio when I have an agenda clash. (I do also 
   wonder, in this case, how we support people with platforms 
   that can't run Webex in any of its forms.)