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

RJ Atkinson <> Thu, 10 May 2012 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8B921F8592 for <>; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.555
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JJZ+kWFTRKBW for <>; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82A321F8584 for <>; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcsq13 with SMTP id q13so1438650qcs.31 for <>; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=oZJO+5aCi/wUesTzSunaTXadzVU9ymlKFz1RAFbo/N0=; b=WlWUY2w3pl7incXpzbW/losp7cHEOedLOa75j4TLF1+pmyWbqhKKdH3jBTxFxnjqzQ PX7Gw0n+eMMvvAvzILmc4WlnNjnZJ8Oiy3elt8skw53KRWr2I33CEnmrFRPO2+Roph4p A4fk3Ud40KRGpVZqmVIhIWHqLIpnMAaXwJ9TOFLhrUV0k9FDWWVp/uzSUVheNIhBQaAg Z+LK+xZoI3wZElS/ONuh3b8L/Ka0n/zr+P4sywPtyEEOUU89kQL+NQ7NLfGGI7Ha5gqi Vw/iZwsKfGTuvmedEDXFP5dFQ3LO1ph8B5xVFlbsuXSmMJ8yEmZzWlF/24qLQHquFpZM S6rQ==
Received: by with SMTP id q16mr12234418qae.70.1336662899310; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id ch15sm16882598qab.18.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 10 May 2012 08:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: RJ Atkinson <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:14:56 -0400
Message-Id: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:15:00 -0000

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.


  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.



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.)