Re: legal consultation (was List moderator action)

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, May 8, 2026 09:33 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 08-May-26 07:57, Scott Bradner wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 7, 2026, at 3:53 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> I don't remember, but I think the strong distinction implied by
>>> "WG adoption" and posting of documents as draft-ietf-WGNAME-...
>>> rather than draft-AuthorName-... came after the no-derivative
>>> language.  If so, that was not a very strong reason.  My memory
>>> could be wrong however.
>> 
>> yup - the non-derivative language needs to be removed in order for
>> a ID to be be adopted (signaled by renaming)
> 
> Yes, but "adoption" is not defined by any of our BCPs.
> 
> However, both Rob and I are proposing in different ways to remove
> this pathway completely.

And Scott, Rich, and I have explained reasons why that would be a bad
idea and tried to suggest ways to mitigate the problems while keeping
the option.  If that means we need to clarify "adoption" first, so be
it -- as you and others have pointed out the number of no-derivatives
documents published in the IETF stream is recent years is not large
enough to require treating this as a huge problem.  And, as I hinted
in another thread, if someone appears to be using the no-derivatives
language as a means of (of with the effect of) causing disruption, we
are, at least IMO, better off focusing on the disruptive behavior
than attacking this provision which might have value in other cases.

   john