RE: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Proposed Standard

Eric:

The authors has essentially done that through their IPR 
statement.  Royalty free license will be available only if the 
document becomes a standards-track RFC.

Russ

At 02:32 PM 2/20/2006, Gray, Eric wrote:
>Russ, et al,
>
>         There is a precedent that may need to be established here that
>is not relevant to the TLS Working Group (therefore their omission in
>the CC list above).
>
>         The text to that Bill refers to actually says the following:
>
>    "These notices may not be used with any standards-track document or
>    with most working group documents, except as discussed in Section 7.3
>    below, since the IETF must retain change control over its documents
>    and the ability to augment, clarify and enhance the original IETF
>    Contribution in accordance with the IETF Standards Process."
>
>Further, in section 7.3, RFC 3978 says the following:
>
>    "Occasionally a Contributor may not want to grant publication rights
>    or the right to produce derivative works before finding out if an
>    IETF Contribution has been accepted for development in the IETF
>    Standards Process.  In these cases the Contributor may include the
>    Derivative Works Limitation described in Section 5.2 and the
>    Publication Limitation described in Section 5.3 in their IETF
>    Contribution.  A working group can discuss the Internet-Draft with
>    the aim to decide if it should become a working group document, even
>    though the right to produce derivative works or to publish the IETF
>    Contribution as an RFC has not yet been granted.  If the IETF
>    Contribution is accepted for development the Contributor must then
>    resubmit the IETF Contribution without the limitation notices before
>    a working group can formally adopt the IETF Contribution as a working
>    group document."
>
>         Because this document has not been accepted by any working group,
>the authors are perfectly within their rights to make changing wording
>of the derivative rights section contingent on the outcome of the IETF
>last call.
>
>--
>Eric
>
>--> -----Original Message-----
>--> From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com]
>--> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:22 PM
>--> To: Bill Fenner; Steven M. Bellovin
>--> Cc: iesg@ietf.org; tls@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
>--> Subject: Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to
>--> Proposed Standard
>-->
>--> I misunderstood the original question.  I'll get it fixed
>--> or withdraw
>--> the Last Call.
>-->
>--> Russ
>-->
>-->
>--> At 12:38 AM 2/19/2006, Bill Fenner wrote:
>-->
>--> > >Can we have a Proposed Standard
>--> > >without the IETF having change control?
>--> >
>--> >No.  RFC3978 says, in section 5.2 where it describes the derivative
>--> >works limitation that's present in draft-santesson-tls-ume, "These
>--> >notices may not be used with any standards-track document".
>--> >
>--> >   Bill
>-->
>-->
>--> _______________________________________________
>--> Ietf mailing list
>--> Ietf@ietf.org
>--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>-->

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf