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

John C Klensin <> Sat, 26 March 2016 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419A912D60B for <>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 07:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j7WJyrLOsM51 for <>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 07:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F07212D54A for <>; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 07:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) 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 <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>,
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
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-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:17:26 -0000

--On Saturday, March 26, 2016 10:36 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
<> 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.