IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-koster-rep-06.txt> (Robots Exclusion Protocol) to Informational RFC

Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Tue, 08 March 2022 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB0E3A00AF for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:45:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.926
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 kF6wsjSsCUvC for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:45:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (173-166-5-71-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550743A00AD for <last-call@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:45:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A400219EB1; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 12:45:33 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
From: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <48140751-CE55-4BC4-ABDB-22FF0FAF56AB@sobco.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 12:45:32 -0500
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F6974F6D-8345-4849-8AC7-0B3C89F52B56@sobco.com>
References: <20220228222932.825F33844270@ary.qy> <245C65D2-EC38-4C49-9CA0-3DD687CB37DA@mnot.net> <CA+9kkMAnmoJ0n3mPscZvc6kbyOZjQU78vb+iA0Pw5Qq=_kKZEw@mail.gmail.com> <ee8c0615-9207-cf7a-b1a0-905f33062e7a@taugh.com> <48140751-CE55-4BC4-ABDB-22FF0FAF56AB@sobco.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/7ABeoFh_UXs08vLr9PUnDshw3ak>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-koster-rep-06.txt> (Robots Exclusion Protocol) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2022 17:45:39 -0000

my previous note sent before seeing Ted's - but they seem to b win general agreement - an IETF WG (or other IETF process)
can publish a "no derivative works" if they think its the right thing to do & the IESG agrees

Scott

> On Mar 8, 2022, at 12:40 PM, Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
> 
> fwiw - basically supporting what John said
> 
> the intent was to be able to publish, for information only, company/SDO documents within the IETF process -
> of course the IETF would not have change control over most such documents 
> but the intent was to not require that all such documents go through the independent stream  
> 
> and the intent was not that just any document would qualify but that would be up to the WG/IESG
> 
> in any case, all standards track documents must be under IETF change control and cannot include the 
> "no derivative works" label
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Mar 8, 2022, at 11:59 AM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> I'm uncomfortable leaving change control for a key interoperability
>>>> mechanism in the search market in the hands of one competitor, yet blessing
>>>> it as part of the IETF stream. I think the IETF as a whole should be
>>>> uncomfortable with that too, given current competition enforcement trends.
>> 
>> Putting on my trustee hat, I don't think this can be an IETF document without IETF change control.  RFC 5378 says
>> 
>>     The right to produce
>>  derivative works, in addition to translations, is required for all
>>  IETF Standards Track documents and for most IETF non-Standards Track
>>  documents.  There are two exceptions to this requirement: documents
>>  describing proprietary technologies and documents that are
>>  republications of the work of other standards organizations.
>> 
>> If it's a proprietary technology, Mark is right.  If it's not, we need
>> change control.
>> 
>> Another possibility would be to move it to the Independent stream if Eliot agrees.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>> 
>> -- 
>> last-call mailing list
>> last-call@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
> 
> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email