Re: Status of this memo

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 27 April 2021 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 6919E3A24BC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 YinAfpq5KSHi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 544903A24B7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82179F98; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 19:10:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 19:10:59 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=j/kke27C92NbNlu49Qt57ljmPwycj/mlv39hMpGU9 rQ=; b=JfnZYLPmcsgKK37LTvx7Uz6P55WlECzWAtcP8oHhVLL5uz9RnaRq2lL3a 1atScxek1FzU5hvGVzfB3bSDaaqaZ7iM/Pks/1K45Zlq10EPwYzx4D+gF7O9K5i8 FF9ilNG1T4QOMMpU8Xz207qugcBmBWEWD5KvvG/qoa9d2e0n5+vYp+ve7XdnIlYY 8ujZFxU7osvUvJv5uFk+megFQ4orlZ0Y+yuyDAxyd+D46/jJgPy1WpxhSTh4xJtG Ah4iB3JDCtZtQ33Bu5F/Xt/snrb36VdCZaYbYDmWPhy52mjxAi47y3oK/Vv9S4tU Fw3RGhIJB6VSbXfohLhCxNGgJQPXQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:AJqIYAd7xADDQeQsMPfRDvCe26qacOwrvj3S95Gjihos1Ne4XxTrYw> <xme:AJqIYCPImp5j9x2QOIfpAqvirQmDlRCkghViGTEYUVQ7h_kBLYuunA0oxC87om7Em e72hwxxhGv7HQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddvuddgudejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihht hhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedtheefgfefgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeef leelueeiffetfeeuudeunecukfhppeejfedruddufedrudeiledriedunecuvehluhhsth gvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:AJqIYBgBW2kc09PeqHj251HEfTt8BJizPa_KEzeo1yzQXjnGWcr4Ig> <xmx:AJqIYF9zvrVUZvr3EKxMmimJ74Kxx7TewvHMyl2Gk9SjWt5u0s6vcQ> <xmx:AJqIYMs9lndgj_LfCZMaz-uKTlFCa9um5VwdmYN8YLbN8Mr4_YrGdQ> <xmx:A5qIYC0pLlOE_qC8P-EZgOuTcS6ATi39Zpz0300mOnP8gy89SSdIRA>
Received: from [192.168.30.202] (c-73-113-169-61.hsd1.tn.comcast.net [73.113.169.61]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 19:10:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Status of this memo
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <376f83f0-89a3-cd0e-1792-c8434bd8a5d2@gmail.com> <9ACE59FA-30B6-475A-AF6B-4B874E4A2788@eggert.org> <1804294246.5904.1619512137931@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <D653D3B2-7666-409A-B856-2A4B1BA958CA@eggert.org> <3DBB64B1-40B8-4BC3-B66C-7F9B7F395874@akamai.com> <b5210c71-9500-3dba-05d2-4ae1c6ad16e9@network-heretics.com> <CAA=duU1VJs2vCE=uCF=fXO7FNedn9yPAaZWTgcaAiHTexA8uWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEEz4x3HtUhWQ0ONYCpyHy27E4u7_chVEuHi3rDr+sc39A@mail.gmail.com> <b3762d56-bff2-6f71-caa2-69d34e81b9dc@network-heretics.com> <c3e39357-3f8c-a138-69b3-8e8458221fff@joelhalpern.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <6ced8511-5343-ee5b-8d44-c15971fad90d@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 19:10:56 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c3e39357-3f8c-a138-69b3-8e8458221fff@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wbYqzw6NtFQRmhtYGMqd7qrKKZI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 23:11:06 -0000

On 4/27/21 6:30 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> I have found repeatedly that
> 1) having explicit control moved to the WG for a document is very 
> useful for a WG working on the document
> 2) That being explicit about that change is very helpful for keeping 
> everyone on the same page.

As far as I can tell, such "control" is an illusion, or at best, an 
abstraction of polite cooperation between parties who are not required 
to cooperate.   Happily, that's usually the result.

One potential issue could crop up when a WG asserts "control", makes a 
derivative work of an original author's derivative work, and does so in 
such a way as to (appear to) misrepresent the original author's views.  
My understanding is that "moral rights" aren't respected as part of 
copyright in much of the world, but that they're not entirely 
nonexistent either.

Anyway I think it's probably better to not think of "change control" as 
if nobody else but the WG has the right to edit the original document 
(which is clearly not the case), but instead to think in terms of which 
document the WG is going to collaborate on and which it intends to 
eventually submit for an IETF Last Call. And the WG is free to change 
its mind about that.

Keith