Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-23: (with DISCUSS)

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Tue, 30 April 2019 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F72E1202EE; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 qGxW1bpPaguT; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED53C1202E8; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2039; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1556642271; x=1557851871; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=9BP+gxWS+pht5evx3zS47/CBs7vdgPQLTZEnXjyuDU0=; b=lpnB6y6S3kovOQXjjhpZqRNK0tjP2TK1tL/fdf828UqFKthl1ADtqr0R bq8cDyTa2XTjAgZC64KS6I6HokAQEtk6LSlNva7EW02tE/jvEk++4RR3n kEXnxWozE+DP5Co3RJWRoi9hnvU1nKm2KoPQY92NJpjKy6dKMTCszVv+6 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAACJechc/5BdJa1mDgsBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEHAQEBAQEBgVEEAQEBAQELAYIQgT0wMowiiweCDZhQFIFnDgEBhG0?= =?us-ascii?q?ChjEjNAkOAQMBAQQBAQIBAm0ohUoBAQEDATo4BQIFCwIBCBUDHhAyJQIEDg2?= =?us-ascii?q?FFg+wNoo2gTIBi0kXgUA/hCM+hAmGHQSnBAkCggmSMiOVL54Agl8CERWBMB8?= =?us-ascii?q?4gVZwFYMogkWNUDtBk0eBIQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,414,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="269426682"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 Apr 2019 16:37:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3UGbR1S020837 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:37:27 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:37:27 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:37:27 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
CC: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-23: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AQHU/rKoAXBzztdqKUKWeXbDQMBk+KZUvwVAgABpR4D//74agA==
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:37:26 +0000
Message-ID: <fdf2417f02a4478c841a6672ffb58fe5@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <155655963180.15870.3650019434718355043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <717530026d2d4af0a92c318ecbdbb4bd@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20190429182503.GC60332@kduck.mit.edu> <94d0b3e325ee46e283d84204243bdf69@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <HE1PR0701MB252211756FBD659082FABFF6953A0@HE1PR0701MB2522.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <cce7511973da40f69f642f6e70bf8844@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20190430162527.GI60332@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20190430162527.GI60332@kduck.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.233]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.151, xch-rtp-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9A4a-y7elzPhcc3E90_DcSl8PrU>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-23: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:37:54 -0000

> From: Benjamin Kaduk, April 30, 2019 12:25 PM
> 
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 04:21:31PM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> > > From: Magnus Westerlund, April 30, 2019 4:32 AM
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think it should be avoided if possible to add the pre-5378
> > > boilerplate, it is better to get the rights. Especially in this
> > > situation where there has been many version published stating that
> > > the rights have been had. Is there a problem of getting the rights?
> >
> > Hi Magnus,
> >
> > Here is the current status...
> >
> > There are no full sentences from RFC-5277 used in this document.  However
> there are a few sentence fragments in the terminology, as well as quite a few
> concepts adopted based on RFC5277.  On the basis of that Benjamin's DISCUSS
> however, it felt like we should err on the side of caution by adding his
> suggestion.
> >
> > Along with this, at the end of 2016 the original authors of RFC-5277 (Sharon &
> Hector) stated they no longer needed to be on this draft.  I haven't been in
> contact with them since.  So without a relationship here, it seemed like the
> including the "pre5378Trust200902" text was again erring on the side of caution.
> 
> To be clear, I don't have any favored resolution I'm trying to push, here (though
> Magnus' point is fairly compelling) -- I was just noting the cross-document
> disparity and, in the absence of a note explaining it in the shepherd writeup(s),
> wondering how to bring the documents in line with each other.  If we think that
> the pre-5378 boilerplate is not actually needed here and have explictly thought
> about the question, I am happy to accept that as well.

Is there a process in the IETF to determine copyright coverage based on a couple sentence fragments and concept reuse?  I don't feel capable of providing a legal opinion here.  That is why I l felt converging on the narrower "pre5378Trust200902" boilerplate was safer.

Eric
 
> -Ben