Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

[RJ Atkinson <[e-mail]>]

Earlier, Bob Hinden wrote:
> It is allowed and I don't want to start a big IPR thread here,
> but I think the intent for this clause (no derivative works)
> is for work that someone wants to present to a w.g. that
> was not intended to be an IETF work item.  My opinion is
> that it's not appropriate for documents intended to become
> an IETF work item as yours was.

Bob,

  I disagree with that opinion.

  Sadly, plagiarism is increasingly common in the IETF, especially
plagiarism where text is "borrowed" (i.e. improperly stolen) without 
even an after-the-fact acknowledgement.  I've seen it happen several 
times now, in multiple IETF WGs.  IETF leadership does not seem to feel 
empowered to do anything about it.

  For now, the "no derivative works" clause appears to be the only 
practical way to prevent one's I-D text from being stolen (again,
sigh, commonly without any attribution) early in the idea formation 
and idea circulation stages.

  So while I agree that the "no derivative works" clause does
not belong in an IETF WG document, I very strongly disagree that 
it is not appropriate for documents intended (i.e. in future) 
to become an IETF work item.

Yours,

Ran

PS:  My personal preference would be to eliminate ALL named document
     authors/editors from ALL IETF documents.  That approach works
     very well for IEEE 802, has worked well for a very long time,
     and eliminates a number of long-standing (and growing) issues
     relating to IETF document authoring/editing/creation.  (I understand
     that this last view is controversial with some IETF folks.)