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

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