Re: Problems with draft-ietf-ipr-subm-rights-fix

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Wed, 22 September 2004 20:49 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15025 for <ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:49:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAE9c-0000Aw-6K for ipr-wg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:55:56 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CADyK-0003oq-57; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:44:16 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CADry-0001we-TR for ipr-wg@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:37:42 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13907 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:37:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net ([209.128.82.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CADyc-0008In-Mh for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:44:35 -0400
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8MKbclZ029595 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:37:38 -0700
Received: from localhost (heard@localhost) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id i8MKbbF2029590 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:37:38 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: shell4.bayarea.net: heard owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:37:37 -0700
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: IPR WG <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <78DE523C593F1423F9435FD7@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10409221325440.22916-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Subject: Re: Problems with draft-ietf-ipr-subm-rights-fix
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> IETF Last Call and IESG discussion uncovered 2 problems with the proposed 
> draft-ietf-ipr-subm-rights-fix.
> Both were actually problems with RFC 3667....
> 
> 1) C. M. Heard discovered that section 6 did not permit an RFC Editor 
> contribution to be published with the standard copyright notice and 
> disclaimer; as written, it only permits the special variants given there.
> 
> 2) The RFC Editor discovered that one word had been changed from RFC 3667 
> to draft-ietf-ipr-subm-rights-fix; section 4.2 a(A) was changed from 
> reading "RFC" to "Internet Draft".
> 
> This turns out to be a change from the i-d version of the document to the 
> RFC version that none of the authors caught in Auth48.
> This illustrates the fact that 4.2 only says that the authors grant the 
> right to publish the draft, not to publish the RFC.... this seems strange 
> to the RFC Editor.
> 
> Suggested disposition (AD's opinion):
> 
> For 1): Change section 6 bullet b to contain 3 alternatives, the third one 
> being:
> 
>         C. The Copyright Notice specified in Section 5.4 and the
>            disclaimer specified in section 5.5

I am OK with this.  Note that I also suggested also changing the
"I accept" language in bullets A and B to be "the authors accept"
but I can live without that.

> For 2): Ignore the issue in this revision, and leave it to the RFC Editor's 
> "instructions to RFC Authors" to say that a request to publish a draft as 
> an RFC is taken to mean that permission to do so is granted.

Seems right to me (especially in view of the prior discussion in Scott
and Brian's e-mail messages).

One question, the draft refers to RFC XXXY as the replacement for RFC 3668.
The last call didn't mention it, but I assume that RFC 3668 will indeed be
updated (to point to the RFC 3667 replacement), as implied in the draft.
Is that correct?

//cmh


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg