[procon] Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-ietf-procon-2026bis-08

["D. J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

Once again: Where RFC 2418 says that WG disagreements "must be resolved
by a process of open review and discussion", the new document says that
disagreements "must be resolved by a process of open review and, where
appropriate, open discussion". This change violates the PROCON charter.

Eliot Lear writes:
> D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> > For example, inserting "where appropriate" into the requirement for
> > "open review and discussion" is not a merge of the existing documents.
> > It's not about milestones or adoption. So it violates the charter. Done.
> No it's not.  The document that permits "where
> appropriate" is RFC 2026.

Huh? You're quoting a provision that (1) is about a different situation
and (2) doesn't say "where appropriate".

---D. J. Bernstein


===== NOTICES =====

IETF BCP 78, "Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", Section 5
(normative), "Rights in Contributions", provides a modification right
"unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in a Contribution
(in the form specified by the Legend Instructions)".

The official language from IETF's "Legend Instructions" for the
situation that "the Contributor does not wish to allow modifications nor
to allow publication as an RFC" is as follows: "This document may not be
modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not
be published except as an Internet-Draft."
<https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-TLP-5.0-legal-provsions.pdf>

The same language is used in, e.g., RFC 5831. The same language hereby
applies to this document. This is not disclaiming or limiting the
applicability of IETF policies; it is strictly following IETF policies.

IESG claims that the "explicitly disallowed" provision in BCP 78 is
limited to the examples in Section 3 in BCP 78. That is incorrect. BCP
78 states that Section 5, "Rights in Contributions", is normative, while
Section 3, "Exposition of Why These Procedures Are the Way They Are", is
informative. The opt-out provision in the normative text is clear, and
cannot be limited by an informative section. BCP 78 does not give IESG
any authority to issue changes or purported clarifications of the rules.

Rationale for exercising the BCP 78 opt-out provision: I'm fine with
redistribution of copies of this document. The issue is instead with
modification, such as (1) IESG's May 2025 posting of an IESG-mangled
version of an appeal that I had filed and (2) IETF management selling
IETF mailing-list text to AI companies. This goes far beyond what
copyright law allows as fair use (such as giving quotes for purposes of
commentary). When I complained about the mangled document, the IETF
Executive Director responded not by apologizing but instead by asserting
that IETF management had the power to do whatever it wanted.