Re: [tlp-interest] Request for comments on proposed changes to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

>> The Trustees are proposing additional changes to the Legal Provisions
>> Relating to IETF Documents effective September 12, 2009 (TLP 3.0). This
>> is a formal request for community review, with a 30 day review period
>> ending on December 27, 2009

I think the intention that documents from the other streams have the
same license as IETF documents, minus the BSD code license nonsense,
is fine.

By my reading of the current text, the boilerplate that it specifies
applies to I-Ds (perhaps only to I-Ds intended to become IETF RFCs)
and to IETF RFCs, but not to IAB, Independent, or IRTF RFCs.  While I
think it would be just dandy to publish IRTF RFCs with no boilerplate
at all, I suspect that is not the intention here.

I see that it refers to forthcoming RFCs for Independent and IRTF
RFCs, where the boilerplate might be specified, but for IAB RFCs it
refers to RFC 5378 which doesn't.  Is this a defect in the wording, or
is the expectation that the other streams will provide their language
to the RFC Editor in some other unspecified way?

R's,
John