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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 26 March 2016 14:17 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 419A912D60B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 07:17:26 -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 j7WJyrLOsM51 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 07:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.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 8F07212D54A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 07:17:24 -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 1ajp1m-0007x1-I8; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:17:22 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:17:17 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Message-ID: <4B58C75DE70D7D327C92DE6C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <56F65800.6050001@alvestrand.no>
References: <0000431F-F977-4A24-BA4D-064F740977A0@piuha.net> <DC9B799D-A1EF-457C-B791-9F103FDA7CD6@vigilsec.com> <56F59441.8030901@gmail.com> <FDF935D9B80D3F03F2A93CD8@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <tsl4mbuxpbd.fsf@mit.edu> <56F65800.6050001@alvestrand.no>
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/gCYBALsyCet6nxtwEsOJ8jZFnDE>
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: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:17:26 -0000


--On Saturday, March 26, 2016 10:36 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
<harald@alvestrand.no> 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.  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