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

Scott, 

You (or John) might have added one thing, which is that at least
as things have evolved, when we publish a company document under
that exception (whether it received IETF review and changes were
made during the process or not), those documents not only get
very clear text in the Abstract and/or Introduction explaining
what they are but get titles like "BigCo's Protocol for ..." as
another way to show who has the final say on the spec and where
change control lies.  And, whether it might apply here or not
and AFAIK, we have never recognized either an informal
organization that consists of people working together on one
protocol or an industry consortium with no outside members as an
SDO.

   john

--On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 12:40 -0500 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