[rsab] Re: Editorial Stream Question

[Glenn Deen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sandy

That makes sense, given that the Editorial series didn't exist until
recently, so it won't ever have pre-5378 works directly.    I don't
think we need to explicitly make mention of it in the text since it isn't a
situation that can naturally occur.

So it seems like there's no special exceptions to make note of in the TLP
text for the Editorial series.  Which is great, since it doesn't create any
new special exceptions people have to remember.

regards
Glenn

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 7:11 AM Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I imagined the Editorial Stream being treated as an “alternate stream”, so
> offering full derivative rights (by default) or no derivative rights.
> Because these documents define policies for the RFC Series, I don’t expect
> they will be used outside of this context, so 6.c.iii isn’t needed.
>
> RSAB, what are your thoughts on this?
>
> Sandy Ginoza
> RFC Production Center
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 2026, at 5:29 PM, Glenn Deen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > HI Sandy,
> >
> > You are correct that 9280 does ask for the Trustees to say if they are
> will to accept a stream,  and yes we are.      On the Trust side, the TLP
> 5.0 says the stream editor will request, and I'm sure that was very much
> demonstrated by 9280.     Clearly, we are in strong agreement.
> >
> > For derivative works, that is supported by the TLP and there is language
> to enable/disable it.  The default boilerplate enables it, for example in
> IETF Standards track.   Would applying this same policy as the IETF work
> for the Editorial Stream?      This would set Derivative works allowed by
> default (but would have the option to declare otherwise) just like the IETF
> stream.
> >
> > I assume it does work, but having it confirmed is helpful.
> >
> > regards
> > Glenn
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 9:00 AM Sandy Ginoza <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Glenn,
> >
> > Please note that we have CCed the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB) for
> their input as well.
> >
> > I’m not sure if this is sufficient, but
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9280.html#section-6.1 requests that the
> “Trustees develop the necessary boilerplate to enable the suitable marking
> of documents so that the IETF Trust receives the rights as specified in
> [BCP78].”   Based on the text, I believe the goal is to treat it as an
> alternate stream, which allows derivative works or no derivative works.  It
> doesn’t mention Pre-5378 material.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sandy Ginoza
> > RFC Production Center
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 25, 2026, at 6:15 AM, Glenn Deen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sandy,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the response.
> > >
> > > When the new Editorial Stream was added, it appears that no formal
> request was made to the Trust to take on administration of its' rights.
> That's fine and the Trust doesn't have any problem doing it, but if you
> look at TLP 5.0 section 8
> https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/tlp-5/. you'll
> see a section that calls out for each alt-stream, which parts of the TLP
> aren't applicable to each alt-streams.
> > >
> > > So question:     I don't think that there are any obvious exceptions
> that need to be called out for the ES, but can you have a look at section 8
> and see if any of the types of cited exceptions need to be called out for
> the ES?   Again, I think the answer is none, but if there are now is the
> time to get them into TLP 6.0
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Glenn
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 8:49 PM Sandy Ginoza <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Hi Glenn,
> > >
> > > Thanks for getting TLP 5.0 updated.
> > >
> > > There have been 3 so far (see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?pubstatus%5B%5D=Any&pub_date_type=any&stream_name=Editorial)
>
> > >
> > > RFC 9720: RFC Formats and Versions
> > > RFC 9896: SVG in RFCs
> > > RFC 9920: RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
> > >
> > > Please let us know if you have any questions or need anything from us
> to make this happen.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sandy Ginoza
> > > RFC Production Center
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Feb 24, 2026, at 5:13 PM, Glenn Deen <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > The IETF Trust/IPMC is working on updating the TLP and adding
> explicit mention that the Editorial Stream is included in the streams
> managed by the IETF Trust/IPMC.
> > > >
> > > > This appears to be have been the assumed practice since the very
> start of the Editorial Stream, but no one every explicitly updated the
> Trust TLP 5.0 to mention the Editorial Stream.
> > > >
> > > > Can someone point me to the list of ALL Editorial Stream RFCs that
> have been published up to this point?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > Glenn Deen
> > >
> >
>
>