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

Dear John;

On Nov 27, 2009, at 1:32 PM, John Levine wrote:

>>> 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.

That is not actually the intention. The other streams are supposed to  
have "Postel rules" while the IETF stream has rules from RFC 5377 /  
5378.

>
> 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.

The intention was to have one boilerplate for all documents. From  
Jorge Contreras, our counsel :

The boilerplate that the TLP specifies is intended to apply to ALL I- 
Ds and RFCs that the Trust publishes, not only IETF documents.  We  
attempted to make the boilerplate more generic for this purpose by  
eliminating "to IETF" in the last iteration.

Note that Section 8 c ii says

ii.         Each occurrence of the term “IETF Contribution” and “IETF  
Document” in these Legal Provisions shall be read to mean a  
Contribution or document in such Alternate Stream, as the case may  
be.  The disclaimer in Section 7.a of these Legal Provisions shall  
apply to the manager of such Alternate Stream as defined in RFC 4844  
as though such manager were expressly listed in Section 7.a.

so the wording in Section 6 a and b applies to all documents.

Regards
Marshall

>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlp-interest mailing list
> tlp-interest@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tlp-interest
>