Re: [EXTERNAL] [BOFChairs] Proposed IESG statement on referencing documents behind a paywall

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:50:31AM +0000, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote:
> For a practical example. CTA has blocked access to Huawei due to the BIS directive. 

Any URL for this? With quick googling, i could only find this recent URL about CTA&Huawei:

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-bashing-gets-physical-china-tech-show-113529784.html

AFAIK: If CTA specs are supposed to be published information according to BIS EAR 734.7 
then there is no need for CTA to apply BIS EAR entity list restrictions on their
sales/dissemination.

IMHO: Either CTA can not read and understand BIS EAR regulations, wants to feel
safer through compliance overeagerness or their specs are really not
open specs the way i thought rfc2026 means "open standards".

In general i would be very careful though to judge standard bodies and
their specs because of restriction from governements under which they
operate, or because of misguided self-imposed restrictions in fear of
selective prosection by said governemnts. We all may wake up one day
with our government inventing new arbitrary regulations. Some of us are
just learning this lesson now.

Cheers
    Toerless

Btw: IEEE had a funny reaction to the US BIS EAR ruling on Huawei:
They announced to continue to sell their standards to Huawei people, but they
prohibit the sales of other items from their merchandise store to them
- like caps and t-shirt. Huawei must be devastated. Obviously shirts & caps
are not subject to BIS EAR export restrictions either. I still would like to
figure out if this was also just lame compliance overeagerness or
whether somebody at IEEE actually has a good sense of humor.

> In such a case the citation may not be avoidable, but it would seem appropriate to mark the reference as restricted from open world wide access. 


> 
> -glenn 

Cheers
    Toerless
> 
> > On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:00 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi chairs,
> >  In the past we have dealt with a few drafts that have had normative references to paywalled documents and we have dealt with them on a case-by-case basis (usually during or after IETF last call). In order to get the working groups involved earlier in the process, the IESG is working on issuing a statement on how to deal with such drafts and we would greatly appreciate input from WG chairs on this topic. This is the proposed text of the statement
> > 
> > *** START TEXT ***
> > 
> > As described in Section 7.1 of RFC 2026, RFCs may have normative 
> > references on external standards.
> > 
> > In some cases, however, those references are themselves not generally
> > available (for instance, they might be accessible only after paying
> > a fee). This can interfere both with the ability of implementers
> > to implement the protocol as well as with the ability of the IETF
> > community to review it.
> > 
> > In such cases:
> > 
> > 1. The WG MUST be explicitly informed of any such normative reference
> > and the WG MUST reach consensus that it is acceptable. The 
> > document shepherd MUST include this information in the shepherd 
> > writeup.
> > 
> > 2. The reference MUST be explicitly noted as part of the IETF Last
> > Call. If such a note is omitted, the last call MUST be repeated
> > after including it.
> > 
> > *** END TEXT ***
> > 
> > Please go over this text and let me know if you have any concerns, comments, or additions by 2019/06/26. 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Suresh
> > _______________________________________________
> > BOFChairs mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bofchairs

-- 
---
[e-mail]