Re: SDNAuth - Secure SDN authentication and authorization - Interested?

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

That's much clearer, and to my mind more worrying.

Any discussion outside of the IETF is outside the IETF, whether it's within
a group, or a list, or a pub on the corner, or whatever. The IETF surely
cannot impose its IPR rules to the world at large.

If the results of that discussion are later entered as a contribution to
the IETF, the IETF's IPR rules apply to the person contributing, not to the
originator.

If the list discussion needs to happen under the IETF rules, the list needs
to be formally an IETF one.

Note that I'm not concerned with the specifics of whether this list ought
to exist or whether the goals are defined - just whether an non-IETF list
should be under IETF rules.
On 4 Feb 2015 21:02, "Kathleen Moriarty" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Dave Cridland <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > So you want this list to be under IETF rules, because it's intended that
> > IETF contributions will happen from it, but you don't want it to be an
> IETF
> > list, because people might treat it as being IETF contributions.
>
> My request was in the list of steps I provided to Hosnieh and that was
> just to ensure that those contributing to a draft outside of IETF
> understand that the NoteWell applies to content on that draft to be
> contributed.  It's important for this to be understood by
> contributors.  My request was for her to work with a small group and I
> never suggested a list.  I sent her this list several weeks ago along
> with a private note to help her with next steps.  The list I sent her
> is the same that I posted.
>
> I'm going to get back to reading drafts and not answer for others in
> this discussion.
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
> >
> > I see there's a distinction, I'm not clear why it was drawn, but I'll
> take
> > your word for it that it's not as political as it sounds.
> >
> > On 4 Feb 2015 20:27, "Kathleen Moriarty" <
> [e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Dave,
> >>
> >> I didn't read this thread the same way you did.  I read it as Ted
> >> pointing out that the Notewell will be important for contributors to
> >> understand applies for any submission that comes to the IETF.
> >>
> >> You can look at the SecAuth archive to see why it was shutdown.  Many
> >> were glad as the work was taking too long to become focused into an
> >> achievable set of goals.  A push to go back to the drawing board was
> >> needed.  If it's an IETF list, many feel they have to follow it and
> >> the work wasn't ready for that yet.  We'll re-evaluate the proposal
> >> when they have had time to narrow the scope and figure out what
> >> problem they want to solve most.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Kathleen
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> > Do I understand this right? The original mailing list was shut down by
> >> > the
> >> > IETF, and folks are now complaining that the third party list isn't an
> >> > IETF
> >> > one? Seriously?
> >> >
> >> > On 4 Feb 2015 14:29, "Tobias Gondrom" <[e-mail]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 04/02/15 21:12, Ted Lemon wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:14 PM, Tobias Gondrom <
> [e-mail]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> just fyi: the mailing-list does on its sign-up page (in the first
> line)
> >> >> make the explicit statement to operate under the IETF
> >> >> Notewell:https://mail.rozanak.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnauth
> >> >>
> >> >> That's precisely what I would advise doing in this situation.   It
> >> >> might
> >> >> be worth adding that the list is informal and is not sponsored by the
> >> >> IETF,
> >> >> though; otherwise people might get the impression that it's an
> official
> >> >> IETF
> >> >> mailing list.   You should also disclose whether or not the list is
> >> >> being
> >> >> archived, although since it's not an IETF mailing list, whether you
> do
> >> >> so is
> >> >> not up to us.   If the list is not archived, however, it might be
> >> >> difficult
> >> >> and involve a painful discovery process if for some reason the Note
> >> >> Well had
> >> >> to be enforced in a lawsuit.  So while keeping an archive places an
> >> >> additional burden on Hosnieh, it is probably a win for other
> >> >> participants.
> >> >>
> >> >> (And yes, I realize you were talking to the other Ted... :)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Just fyi: I am not the administrator of the mailing-list. I just
> >> >> happened
> >> >> to sign-up and noticed that the notewell is/was already there on the
> >> >> sign-up
> >> >> page. It seems the new list only got needed up as the Sec AD
> (Kathleen)
> >> >> shut
> >> >> down the previous IETF BOF mailing-list.
> >> >>
> >> >> And to answer your second question: it appears the new list is being
> >> >> archived, as is also a basic mailman function.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best regards, Tobias
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Kathleen
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>