Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2008-03-28 20:14, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
> 
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> While not really disagreeing with Leslie and Olaf, I would
>> point out that the IPR WG was chartered to look at
>> IETF documents.
> 
> Those being ietf-stream exclusively or implicitly also covering the
> iab-stream?

I think the clear separation defined in RFC 4844 was not so clear
at the time the WG took its major decisions. However, my personal
assumption was that we were only talking about the IETF stream.

> 
> Personally, I think it makes sense that the iab-stream is covered, but
> let me put that in front of the IAB too.

It makes sense to me that the IPR conditions for IAB documents
should be identical to those for IETF documents.

> 
>> We can have a meta-discussion about
>> where the clarifications belong, but it seems to me
>> that the WG consensus definitely assumed that scope
>> and no wider scope. I'd be happy if that was made
>> clear in the drafts, rather than trying to cover
>> the other documents streams by some kind of awkward
>> retro-fit.
> 
> 
> My suggestion is to rewrite  section 4 a bit to call out that this
> document does not cover the incoming rights for the independent and irtf
> stream and to use the terms "ietf-stream" and possibly "iab-stream" in
> the definitions.

As the responsibilities are defined in sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2
of RFC 4844, it seems to me that an IETF-stream BCP can only
define the rules for IETF-stream RFCs. So I think the IAB would
need to issue its own IPR addendum to RFC 4845.

> 
> Such a rewrite would preserve the status quo for the independent and
> irtf stream.

If you're sure what the status quo actually is...

    Brian
> 
> no-hats,
> 
> --Olaf
> 
> 
> <no further comments below>
> 
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> While not really disagreeing with Leslie and Olaf, I would
>> point out that the IPR WG was chartered to look at
>> IETF documents. We can have a meta-discussion about
>> where the clarifications belong, but it seems to me
>> that the WG consensus definitely assumed that scope
>> and no wider scope. I'd be happy if that was made
>> clear in the drafts, rather than trying to cover
>> the other documents streams by some kind of awkward
>> retro-fit.
>>
>>   Brian
>>
>> On 2008-03-28 08:15, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>>>
>>> --On March 27, 2008 10:33:24 AM +0100 Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I would think that the document would gain in clarity if it explicitly
>>>> ties the incoming rights to the streams as defined in RFC4844 and also
>>>> explicitly calls out that if new streams would be defined those should
>>>> specifically define if and how rights are transferred to the IETF
>>>> Trust.
>>>
>>> I would have to agree with the above, and say further that the
>>> the IAB should make sure that the entities responsible for
>>> the non-IETF streams are okay with the result.
>>>
>>> When writing the streams definitions, it was clear that there was a
>>> lot of material that was spread across existing documents without
>>> clear delineation between "IETF" or "non-IETF" documents, let
>>> alone further refinement into what has become "streams".  THat's
>>> understandable, historically, but we should be clearer going
>>> forward.  Breaking it out, as you suggest, would be consistent
>>> with that goal.
>>>
>>> Leslie.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> While reviewing the documents I tried to determine how the 4 streams
>>>> currently defined in RFC4844 fit into the framework.
>>>>
>>>> Although the stream is not specifically mentioned it is clear that the
>>>> incoming rights document applies to the IETF Stream.
>>>>
>>>> To me it is clear that a contribution to the IAB is explicitly bound by
>>>> the rules (including the No Duty to Publish rule, that allows for
>>>> confidential information to be supplied to the IAB), so are
>>>> contributions
>>>> from the IAB, i.e. IAB stream document. I conclude this from the fact
>>>> that "IAB" is part of the IETF under the definition in 1.e. However, I
>>>> may be over-interpreting, and the status of the incoming rights for the
>>>> IAB stream is also not captured.
>>>>
>>>> The independent stream document are clearly excluded by section 4 of
>>>> the
>>>> document.
>>>>
>>>> It is not quite clear where the IRTF stream document live. This
>>>> could be
>>>> fixed in a document which defines the IRTF stream.
>>>>
>>>> I would think that the document would gain in clarity if it explicitly
>>>> ties the incoming rights to the streams as defined in RFC4844 and also
>>>> explicitly calls out that if new streams would be defined those should
>>>> specifically define if and how rights are transfered to the IETF Trust.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Olaf (no hats)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IETF mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf